What is the point of HVY?

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
See my comment on the two strategies to maximize Guards units (or in other words, winning).

I still don't follow you; it seems to me that you can follow the same two strategies with much more success if the 1:1 rule is in place than if it is not?

Also, you did not mention several important unit types which do not come back if pocketed, including cav, mountain, and airborne troops.

[ComradeP]

Soviet unit quality decays alone due to supply shortage and replacements due to extremely high losses. And damaged elements that go into the pool come back as "recruits" as far as I know. You don't want to train the shells, you want to keep the professional units edge.

I'm not convinced that Soviet unit quality decays so much that it will usually be worse than the quality of replacements. Checking a save from Flavio's game with James has not changed that, in fact, it has made me less convinced that grinding can normally push most units below where they would be as shells.

Such as

Cavalry and mountain divisions, both of which get morale bonuses now so their destruction is more useful than ever before. Airborne brigades also don't come back, which means 1 less Guards division to worry about later for every 2 you destroy.

The Soviet motor pool rises like a balloon by itself. This balloon punctures itself as soon as mud hits. You can check the numbers on the spreadsheet I keep for my AAR about my game with Q-Ball.

The Soviet motor pool rises like a balloon due to vehicle mobilization and unit downsizing. Tank and motorized divisions often use only 1/3 to 1/4 of the vehicles full strength Tank or Mechanized corps need, so that balloon soon pops. Whereas the reduction in the mud is temporary and due to the supply system requiring more vehicles, the reduction with corps creation is permanent.

It's not much different. One thing is to generate "new recruits" - the difference between manpower pool in two consecutive turns and the number of manpower produced, and another one is what is reported in the Logistic Reports which amalgamates reinforcements from elements already in the pool.

With proper management of armaments, the Soviets can equip 500.000 men or more in a single turn if they want to. 90.000 men is a really conservative average for the summer campaign. I might even say it's an unrealistically low estimate.

But your thinking and planning can't become dependant on "shots in the arm". They're emergency measures.

Depending on those measures is a bad idea, but you shouldn't ignore them either. You can, and in my opinion should, plan ahead for the injection in manpower you get from corps disbanding and can get from other (hard-coded) efficiency measures (mostly downsizing support squad requirements in most TOE's).

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Klydon



Considering some of your other posts and the tone of those posts, I am going to assume that instead of being a newb to the community here, you are a multi account of a person that has experience and posts here regularly and are tired of Pelton's "rants". If you are indeed a new person, I apologize and then invite you to review a lot of the AAR's, especially the older ones that featured just about every German getting either crushed in the winter or absolutely crushed in 1942. That does not have a historical feel to it at all for a variety of reasons and attempts have been made to work on the situation.

The facts right now are that this game does not have much of a historical feel to it for either side for the vast majority of players. The Germans can advance as much as they want, but it is a hollow advance. The vast majority of Russians have absolutely no reason at all to stand and fight as they did historically to give time to evacuate industry in part because some of the industry appears to have no effect on the game at this time and in part because the remaining industry that is very important can easily be evacuated since rail cap doesn't have to be split. On top of that, there is no other geographical detail that causes significant issues for the Russians if it should fall to the Germans beyond Baku, which the Germans are not getting to. The results are predictable at this point with a enlarged Russian army kicking the crap out of a German army due to the blizzard rules. 1942, we don't know a lot yet about for version 1.05 and on paper, it has to be better than what we were seeing before with a large Russian army hunkered behind rows of level 3/4 forts and the Germans unable to do anything about it. In effect, the game lost its mobility from 1942 on and became more like a WW1 game.

If Pelton seems over the top about his case for Axis issues, he is a bit, but no more so than some of the Russian fan boy types who insist there is nothing wrong or insist on more shackles for the German side while the Russians enjoy all sorts of strategic freedoms already that the Axis can only dream about (like not having to deal with unit withdraws, unfavorable OOB changes regardless of the situation of the front, and the inability to customize support units just to name a few). For those of us who are looking for a terrific game representing the Eastern Front that provides a great gaming experience for both sides and has the correct feel of the actual campaign to a point, this game is a work in progress and while progress is being made, there remains more to be done.

Excellently said.

[Oskkar]

Klydon, you have understood nothing of my post

What I criticize is not the content of the claim, but the hollow evidence provided in support. It has nothing to do with forts, blizzard, game balance, etc

[Oskkar]

Klydon, the paper by Overy cited by Pelton himself as evidence that Soviet Armament industry was captured, and that leaving behind Heavy Industry is a gamey Soviet exploit, says the following:

a ) "The Soviet system was all but shattered in 1941, two-thirds of its heavy industrial capacity captured and its vast air and tank armies destroyed."

b) "...while the vast exodus of workers (an estimated 16 million) and factories (more than 2,500 major plants) from in front of the advancing Germans allowed the USSR to reconstruct its armaments economy"

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: 76mm
I still don't follow you; it seems to me that you can follow the same two strategies with much more success if the 1:1 rule is in place than if it is not?

I need to make examples, and the best way to do that is to play out the game and describe those on an AAR.

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Also, you did not mention several important unit types which do not come back if pocketed, including cav, mountain, and airborne troops.

Mountain is the only one I would really care about. Cavalry can be built and it's not so easy to get trapped if you aren't forced to hold the line with it (I don't think it's their mission). And airborne also hurts, but there aren't that many of them. You get more than you need in December.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Soviet unit quality decays alone due to supply shortage and replacements due to extremely high losses. And damaged elements that go into the pool come back as "recruits" as far as I know. You don't want to train the shells, you want to keep the professional units edge.

I'm not convinced that Soviet unit quality decays so much that it will usually be worse than the quality of replacements. Checking a save from Flavio's game with James has not changed that, in fact, it has made me less convinced that grinding can normally push most units below where they would be as shells.

It all depends on the morale of the units due to losing battles. Also artillery and support weapons suffer the most, since they're most of the losses incurred during retreats (the most common result of combat, by far, for the Soviets in 1941).

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Such as

Cavalry and mountain divisions, both of which get morale bonuses now so their destruction is more useful than ever before. Airborne brigades also don't come back, which means 1 less Guards division to worry about later for every 2 you destroy.

As I answered to 76mm, the only real concern are mountain units. And to be honest, they're not really a "vengeance" weapon. They're nice, but not essential. About Airborne Bdes: how many of them they're at the start? Twelve? How many do usually survive, even with pocketing? 8? People use them to build up forts, and you don't really build up right on the front line? And then, how many do you get for free in December?

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

The Soviet motor pool rises like a balloon by itself. This balloon punctures itself as soon as mud hits. You can check the numbers on the spreadsheet I keep for my AAR about my game with Q-Ball.

The Soviet motor pool rises like a balloon due to vehicle mobilization and unit downsizing. Tank and motorized divisions often use only 1/3 to 1/4 of the vehicles full strength Tank or Mechanized corps need, so that balloon soon pops. Whereas the reduction in the mud is temporary and due to the supply system requiring more vehicles, the reduction with corps creation is permanent.

That's the reason why I think that getting worried about Motorized Divisions being pocketed is a bit like getting worried that when one gets out of his house a lighting might strike him. You only get Corps if you survive 1941. Before that, they're things you fancy you had available, but you haven't.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

It's not much different. One thing is to generate "new recruits" - the difference between manpower pool in two consecutive turns and the number of manpower produced, and another one is what is reported in the Logistic Reports which amalgamates reinforcements from elements already in the pool.

With proper management of armaments, the Soviets can equip 500.000 men or more in a single turn if they want to. 90.000 men is a really conservative average for the summer campaign. I might even say it's an unrealistically low estimate.

I can get the exact numbers for you ComradeP. But there's a big crunch in the ability to replace losses that starts, approximately, at the beginning of September. The reasons for this are varied, and I'm not sure I know all of them. One of the most significant is that about that time you start feeling the effect of all those factories having been evacuated in the previous 10 or 12 turns.

500k men per turn is only possible for a couple turns or three, more if you spend a lot of AP disbanding Corps HQ's. And you'll have possibly gobbled completely the armaments pool (I did, because of "opening the flood gates"). A more gradualistic approach might be more intelligent in the long run. There's no point to spend more resources than strictly necessary on units which are going to be smashed or pocketed no matter what you do. You can only delay, you can't really stop the German Army.

Besides that, those "massive refits" are limited by the number of slots needing replacement in your units and Refit mechanics, which always assign the most priority to SUs replenishment. One don't have enough AP's to do simultaneously all the disbanding of HQ's, Airbases and SU's, leader appointment, Command and Control reestructuring and the occasional fort building.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

But your thinking and planning can't become dependant on "shots in the arm". They're emergency measures.

Depending on those measures is a bad idea, but you shouldn't ignore them either. You can, and in my opinion should, plan ahead for the injection in manpower you get from corps disbanding and can get from other (hard-coded) efficiency measures (mostly downsizing support squad requirements in most TOE's).

Indeed. On the topic of support squads I'm noticing - by watching the stats - that Support Squad building has cyclic nature. During two or three turns, not a Support Squad is built, then, all of a sudden, and for one or two turns, several thousand of them are built in one go. Looks to me that the hard-coded algorithm for choosing what elements to build assign to them the lowest priority. The problem is that these "spikes" might come right when it's most inconvenient.

[M60A3TTS]

ORIGINAL: Klydon
while the Russians enjoy all sorts of strategic freedoms already that the Axis can only dream about (like not having to deal with unit withdraws, unfavorable OOB changes regardless of the situation of the front, and the inability to customize support units just to name a few).

Regarding OOB changes, I'd point out one shining example that I played as Soviet in my first PBEM game. The Soviet 1941a Tank Division per TO&E on paper was meant to have enough T-34s to handle panzer divisions. I hit on the idea of making the 4th Army of the Western Front a Tank Army all its own, with 12 tank divisions and sent it to the rear to build up for 6 weeks, gaining equipment, morale and experience. I figured in time it would have more than enough strength to go toe to toe with panzers.

It was a brilliant plan, right up to the moment I realized that the current TO&E would "upgrade" soon to a new one that would reduce the T-34 strength by 90%.

Also, in 1941 the Soviet rifle division of 14k men similarly upgrades to a little over 10k, right around the time the Germans are moving on Moscow.

The point here is the Axis do not hold a monopoly on unfavorable TO&E changes.

[Klydon]

You are correct that the Germans do not corner the market when it comes to undesirable ToE changes, but I would suggest that the ratios are fairly reverse of each other in that 75-80% of the German changes are not very good and that 75-80% of the Russian changes are generally for the better as the war goes along, especially when it comes to corps upgrades.

[76mm]

And you'd rather have a fantasy game in which historic ToE changes are thrown out the window? The fact is that Sov ToE got a lot better as the war went on...

Also, while I kind of sympathize with German complaints about the Sov ability to "create their own army", I'm not convinced that it makes that big a difference, as this army is still constrained by how many tanks, guns, men, etc. the Sovs have. I expect that giving the Sovs a strictly historical OOB would give them the same overwhelming advantage, although units might appear earlier/later, in different places, etc. What real difference would it make? This is not of course an argument against giving the Germans the same ability, but in my view the overall effect is incremental.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

And you'd rather have a fantasy game in which historic ToE changes are thrown out the window? The fact is that Sov ToE got a lot better as the war went on...

Also, while I kind of sympathize with German complaints about the Sov ability to "create their own army", I'm not convinced that it makes that big a difference, as this army is still constrained by how many tanks, guns, men, etc. the Sovs have. I expect that giving the Sovs a strictly historical OOB would give them the same overwhelming advantage, although units might appear earlier/later, in different places, etc. What real difference would it make? This is not of course an argument against giving the Germans the same ability, but in my view the overall effect is incremental.

German TOE changes were consequences of losses on the battlefield being unsustainable, so assets had to be diluted (tanks, guns, pioneers)

Soviet TOE changes were consequences of lessons learned. Assets were concentrated (AND plentiful). Soviet PLAYERS can OPT to avoid the early corps that are inefficient in terms of asset concentrations, and avoiding the inefficiencies that historically were REQUIRED to be made before they could be realized to be inefficient.

The point is ultimately, 76mm, that WitE makes no accommodation for delaying German asset dilution even if assets are sufficiently plentiful.

The same principles are true of the national morale levels.
It would be more interesting for play-balance if the German TOE and National Morale penalties were keyed to cumulative losses rather than arbitrarily defined by a history that will be radically different than the one we've read about.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

ORIGINAL: 76mm

And you'd rather have a fantasy game in which historic ToE changes are thrown out the window? The fact is that Sov ToE got a lot better as the war went on...

Also, while I kind of sympathize with German complaints about the Sov ability to "create their own army", I'm not convinced that it makes that big a difference, as this army is still constrained by how many tanks, guns, men, etc. the Sovs have. I expect that giving the Sovs a strictly historical OOB would give them the same overwhelming advantage, although units might appear earlier/later, in different places, etc. What real difference would it make? This is not of course an argument against giving the Germans the same ability, but in my view the overall effect is incremental.

German TOE changes were consequences of losses on the battlefield being unsustainable, so assets had to be diluted (tanks, guns, pioneers)

Soviet TOE changes were consequences of lessons learned. Assets were concentrated (AND plentiful). Soviet PLAYERS can OPT to avoid the early corps that are inefficient in terms of asset concentrations, and avoiding the inefficiencies that historically were REQUIRED to be made before they could be realized to be inefficient.

The point is ultimately, 76mm, that WitE makes no accommodation for delaying German asset dilution even if assets are sufficiently plentiful.

The same principles are true of the national morale levels.
It would be more interesting for play-balance if the German TOE and National Morale penalties were keyed to cumulative losses rather than arbitrarily defined by a history that will be radically different than the one we've read about.

Another point to be made about the "Create their own Red Army" advantage is to look at it this way:
Would it seriously affect the way you play the game if you were tethered to historical arrivals of artillery divisions, artillery SUs, sappers, and construction SUs (be they RR or regular)?

Maybe you'll say no, but I can't imagine that forcing this on the Soviet wouldn't give Germany a much bigger chance to hold out over the long haul to 1945.

[ComradeP]

Regarding the TOE discussion, keep in mind that it takes years for the actual German TOE's to downsize, whilst on the battlefield many units were, at best, at about 2/3 strength or even less as early as late 1941.

In that sense, TOE's model the reality on paper, not the reality on the battlefield. If TOE's would model the reality on the battlefield, German TOE's would start downsizing in 1942.

[Mike13z50]

the inability to customize support units just to name a few

Did the developers ever say why the Germans can't make support units? I can understand the OOB issues (another dozen Panzer Divisions please] but seems that allowing OKH to decide it needs another dozen pioneer battalions would be a reasonable prerogative of the high command? Maybe it is because the germans are allowed to attach at the divisional level?

It seems like as the Soviets you are Stalin, but as the Germans you are just CC East Front.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Mike13z50
It seems like as the Soviets you are Stalin, but as the Germans you are just CC East Front.

The irony is that CC East Front eventually beame the guy with the ironic moustache himself.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

It's a tester game, so there's no public AAR. All I can say is: learn to cleave. There's some decent examples of cleaving in BG's game by Q-ball, though.

I have been trying to cleave in my gc against Fiva ( old dog vs young pup AAR) and would be grateful for your views on the adequacy of my efforts and how they could be improved

[76mm]

Would it seriously affect the way you play the game if you were tethered to historical arrivals of artillery divisions, artillery SUs, sappers, and construction SUs (be they RR or regular)?

Of course it is impossible to say, but I am not sure how much it would affect gameplay, it would simply force the Sov player to be more efficient about their allocation. Currently I have wads of SUs lying around in armies in quiet parts of the front that I would reallocate if I really felt a pinch.

The only big issue I think is that it might make it harder to replace divs lost in pockets, but even this is not necessarily the case, because presumably the historic reinforcement schedule would provide a steady stream of replacement units.

I can't say that I've really focused on this issue, but so far I think that while it is incrementally useful it is hardly a decisive advantage.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

ORIGINAL: stone10

I think that will encourage the German player going mad for industry rather than pocketing.

Pocketing is not possible because of the exploit.

Russian players simply evac and run in the south, then reenforse Moscow to Leningrad. They can also evac Leningrad faster then you can get to it so losing it means nothing. The manpower hit is meanless at this time in game.

So pocketing units is next to impossible vs a normal russian player.

Follow the 1.05 AAR's every russian player is using this exploit to death and are more then proud to jump up and down about it.

Basicly at this point getting to even 3 million dead russians is very hard because they can leave 75% of the front open. They can retreat much much faster then railheads can get close to there retreats to east.

I was pocketing 12 to 15 units a turn vs Flaviusx in south and he figured what was the point of losing troops and just ran east. I can't blame him why fight? all his armerment points were evaced so he just marched east.

Over 60% of the front became dead after turn 10.

Pelton

I have to take issue with your choice of words. I could be reading it wrong because the spelling sometimes makes it hard for me to understand what you're trying to say.

So what are you saying is an exploit? (definition - An exploit, in video games, is the use of a bug or design flaw by a player to their advantage in a manner not intended by the game's designers.) If the dev's were faithful to the soviet unions production capabilities then how is this a design flaw?

Now before someone throws out i'm a blah blah fan boy whatever nonsense. I've pushed for changes to winter to help germany as well as pushing for changes that help the soviets. Because in the end a balanced (as much as historically possible on june 1941) game helps everyone in the long run.

I'd still like to see germany get more production controls similar to the japs in witp:ae. But calling HI an exploit is just being inflammatory or showing ignorance.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: vlcz

ORIGINAL: Oskkar
..That is the fact. About the fate of Heavy Industry, I do not really know, BUT THE LINK HE HIMSELF PROVIDED SHOWS THAT MOST OF IT WAS LOST. Pelton very dishonestly hides this fact in his neverending rants.

We can think anyway about Pelton ,you , me or Genghis Khan, but it is NOT sound design that the loss of 100 HVY industry , means NOTHING...Other than as soviet I can use a MILLION rail points in something useful instead

Is the map that is laid out historically accurate? If so then i'm ok with it. Read absolute war it details about the soviets and them moving out their armaments factories. You didn't see them evacuating things that were non-essential. To assume that 100% of the HI in the russian economy was essential is a pretty big leap. The germans have to focus on killing soviet units. Factory destruction is going to be proven to be a waste of peoples focus in my opinion. If we want to have an alternate scenario where factory destruction could well be a valid german tactic lets put a team together to build the new custom scenario. Then we can put all this stuff to bed.

I would love to make a scenario where the germans could actually win but it's not going to be in the GC provided by 2by3.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The reason armament factories are in vogue is because most Axis players haven't figured out the stuff that my opponent James has. When they do, they'll be lot more scary. He doesn't chase factories. He grinds the Red Army. And I mean grind, not pocket.

I completely endorse this.

Pocketing for the sake of pocketing doesn't mean a damn until the Soviets don't get the units rebuilt for free (or one pockets 1/3 of the Red Army in one go). Cadres can be managed, they're a complete non-issue from the organizational perspective if the Soviet player micromanages properly Refit and TOE levels. I would even go as far as saying it even slows the Axis and blunts their operational edge. Cleaving, as in smashing good Soviet formations in a consistent while also pursuing consistently clearly set out objectives is the way to go. Pockets will eventually come down on Axis players as a ripe fruit does from a tree.

The only point i'd make is that it does do a damn thing because we're sucking up soviet manpower points. But I agree finding and smashing the few tough soviet units they have will really help you in the long run.