Question

[Klydon]

I am giving some preliminary consideration to a project I may or may not undertake at some point. (Time is limited right now unfortunately).

With the hindsight of history in WITE terms, which side does the community think can exceed historical performance? (Meaning, will the Germans generally be able to advance further and/or can the Russians both hold the Germans to less than historical gains and make it into Berlin before historical?).

Obviously, any game is going to be one way or the other, which it likely should be since after the start of the game, we are not following history anymore.

Thanks.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Klydon
I am giving some preliminary consideration to a project I may or may not undertake at some point. (Time is limited right now unfortunately).

With the hindsight of history in WITE terms, which side does the community think can exceed historical performance? (Meaning, will the Germans generally be able to advance further and/or can the Russians both hold the Germans to less than historical gains and make it into Berlin before historical?).

Obviously, any game is going to be one way or the other, which it likely should be since after the start of the game, we are not following history anymore.

I don't have myself a definite answer to your question, since there's a big problem with the GC victory conditions only considering the final outcome of the campaign when rating performance, and basically ignoring everything that has gone in the middle (such as losses).

I'd say the German side is the one with the best bet for that, though this I think might seem controversial. The reasons for me answering this way are the ongoing AARs featuring Axis players holding their ground deep in Russia well into 1944. Games, I'd like to note, which were started way before 1.05 changes - with all the problems it entailed to the Axis. I can only wonder what would be possible in 1944 for an Axis player who started with 1.05. The Axis players on these AARs need to be commended by all of us: they show us how willpower is a major factor when fighting such a defensive, frustrating and depressing struggle.

Axis auto victory seems to be out of reach, but MichaelT showed us that it was well within reach (and Pelton might one of these days).

I've yet to see any Soviet AAR here against a human player reaching Berlin well before 1945 (or at any time). Axis players tend to forgo the games when extraordinary events such as the Soviets crossing the lower Dnepr in Summer 1942 (or before). Crossing the Dnepr in 1942 is not, by far, anything like crossing the Oder in April 1945. There at least two examples of Axis players who didn't lose faith, and inflicted devastating defeats on Soviets who overextended during Summer 1942 (one of them right in front of the Carpathian mountains). Surprisingly, Soviet players quit after that.

Regarding the Soviets, unless the Axis player loses faith well before summer of 1945, they have ahead a painful slog towards the west. We don't ever know whether it's possible that the Soviet Union exhausts its seemingly endless manpower after two years of WW1-style assaults and Axis timely operational retreats.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
I've yet to see any Soviet AAR here against a human player reaching Berlin well before 1945 (or at any time).

QFT. Quoted for truth.

[karonagames]

It may take a while for a consensus to form on 1.05, but I think it has moved the game slightly in favour of the Axis, not in terms of achieving an Axis Decisive Victory, but in preventing the SU from achieving an historical or better than historical result.

The main point of contention has been and remains the 1942 campaign; prior to 1.05 the Axis could rarely make any headway in gaining territory or damaging the Red Army. With 1.05, and the knowledge that the Axis can survive well into 1944, the Axis player may decide to use all the benefits given in 1.05 to turtle up and put the pressure on the SU player to build an Army capable of out-attritioning the Axis and then advancing quickly enough once the Dam breaks.

I think Axis players need to make the most of 1.05, as they will never have a better set of tools to prevent the SU from "winning".

[gingerbread]

Ah yes, 1.05 - those were the days...

Whats the latest tactic for turtle-busting?

[karonagames]

Whats the latest tactic for turtle-busting?

Encourage the turtle to stick it's head out then cut it off.

[Ketza]

Even before WITE I considered a strategic defensive doctrine with mobile reserves to be the best Axis choice on the eastern front if the knock out blow could not be delivered in 1941.

WITE victory conditions support that type of Axis choice when 2 players of simular caliber are playing. (in my opinion).

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
Encourage the turtle to stick it's head out then cut it off.

Easier said than done when there is really nothing for the Germans to gain by going on the offensive...

[karonagames]

I wonder if an "instant win" if capturing 2 out of Leningrad/Moscow/Stalingrad/Baku would be enough incentive to attack in 1942?

Those kinds of victory conditions could be agreed as house rules, and might make for more interesting 1942 campaign seasons.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

I wonder if an "instant win" if capturing 2 out of Leningrad/Moscow/Stalingrad/Baku would be enough incentive to attack in 1942?

Those kinds of victory conditions could be agreed as house rules, and might make for more interesting 1942 campaign seasons.

I'm currently looking at something similar by tweaking VP points in the GC, increasing VP's for cities within the 1939 Reich frontiers and to allow for an Auto Victory encompassing all four cities. If I get that working, making variants for Auto victory at two or three of those four cities would be peanuts.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
Encourage the turtle to stick it's head out then cut it off.

Easier said than done when there is really nothing for the Germans to gain by going on the offensive...

LOL I think the turtle that should be encouraged to stick its head here is the Soviets, not the Germans [:D]

Anyway I agree with Big here, 1.05 seems to be Axis friendly, but not overly so, perhaps just enough to make the game more interesting in the long run.

Of course, there will be some players (*khm* Axis fanbois *khm*) that will find something anti-Axis even in 1.05....

[karonagames]

We don't ever know whether it's possible that the Soviet Union exhausts its seemingly endless manpower after two years of WW1-style assaults and Axis timely operational retreats.

The Axis have to capture 3m+ over 1941/1942 and/or capture the cities south of Rostov and up to Gorky to put the SU under any kind of manpower pressure (based on my 1942 tests under 1.05). They do have to manage their arm. points more under 1.05 to give the available manpower rifles. I doubt very much if you will see a Red Army smaller than 7-7.5m come summer 1943.

The hindsight factor and the ability of the SU players to avoid being pocketed in summer 1941 is giving the Red Army roughly 1m "extra" troops in most of the recent AARs, but this may be skewed by a lot of the AARs being from Pelton, who has ignored pockets to go on his Long-Range-Desert-Group-type raids on armament factories.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
The hindsight factor and the ability of the SU players to avoid being pocketed in summer 1941 is giving the Red Army roughly 1m "extra" troops in most of the recent AARs,

I agreed with you in the previous post but this is utterly ridicolous calculation.

How much more troops do you reckon the hindsight and avoiding of Stalingrad, Zitadelle, and festung lunacy gives to Axis players in 43-44 timeframe?

[Q-Ball]

It should be noted that the couple 1944 AARs I can think of share a couple characteristics. (I am thinking of Tarhunnas/Gids, and Idaho/Scar). It is very true that they started under more favorable Russian rules, but they can't be held up as an example, because in both cases I think the Germans won the early game handily.

I give Gids and Scar alot of credit for hanging in, but I think they were both out-generaled early-on, and both Soviet players missed a number of key principals to building the Red Army.

On the other hands, there are scores of AARs between EVENLY matched opponents that ended early, mostly because the trajectory was very much in the Soviet Army favor. I think my game vs. Tarhunnas is a good example; Tarhunnas is a very good player, but I was going to make Berlin without breaking a sweat. We didn't play it out, because the Soviets were too strong frankly. This wasn't due to generalship, it's because the game was clearly skewed.

Unfortunately, I just don't think we can draw alot of conclusions on play balance until several AARs, between evenly matched opponents, reach certain dates.

I also think the Trajectory of both 1944 AARs is that the Axis is fighting forward in trenches until being close to collapse. We haven't seen the complete collapse yet, but once the Wehrmacht is at 15K Rifle squads or less, I can't foresee how you would stabilize a defense line somewhere back of the front, as was done IRL.

[gingerbread]

There is still at least one game mechanic that dis-favours the Soviets, the automatic routing if retreating to what would become an overstacked hex.
If it is needed in the beginning to recreate some dysfunctional chaos that occured, fine. But it should go away at the same time that the +1 odds goes away, and be replaced with that the units keep retreating with ½ normal retreat loss for each additional hex, + ZOC & X-river loss, if applicable.

[karonagames]

I agreed with you in the previous post but this is utterly ridicolous calculation.

You are correct, and I should have shown the other side of the coin: prior to 1.05 the Axis were getting to 1943 at least 300-500k short of the July 1943 benchmark figures.

With 1.05 and the introduction of hiwis, we are seeing Axis numbers getting closer to the historical 3.5m peak. I have yet to see the " no-Stalingrad dividend" that adds about 200k to these numbers. The rule we still need more evidence for is the new static mode/attrition rules. There is some evidence from IdahoNY's AAR that Static mode could be the missing link that gives the Axis the "extra" troops.

edit: It should also be noted that the axis are going into the blizzard at least 300K stronger than historical, and the Blizzard is still be used as the corrector for this,but the Axis are usually starting 1942 summer campaign 200-300k stronger than the 1942 benchmark, this may well increase under 1.05 with the arrival of Hiwis.

[Oleg Mastruko]

Big, to put it VERY short: just don't go overboard with pro-Axis changes.

I think 1.05 is as close to Axis wet dream - as evidenced by Pelton's posts and my own experience - as we Soviet players are ready to tolerate.

[karonagames]

As noted above there is very little "pure" 1.05 data, as the AARs that have got into 1943/44 have 1.03 and 1.04 mixed in.

I agree that Soviet players have to work much harder in 1941, but we have yet to see if they are put under the same pressure in 1942.

[Richard III]

In regard to the Sovs. " fighting harder" in early `41 wnen you do, as in trying to fight from a Lev. 2 fort on a major river line, the CRT generates these results. I can post about 10 more similiar screenies. Note the odds, where do the Ger. get those numbers with a few SU`s attached ?

BTE: why does a 'ready" Fort give a 0 value to the battle ?

Why did I lose 15 Ftrs & 3 Bmrs . to one Flak Company unit ??

These results are what we get from all attacks. No matter what, or where, anywhere from 5:1 to 250: 1

Probably I`m just a really bad Sov. player VS myself ( H to H ) in 5 games and the AI in about 7, so I`ll refrain from saying "the Ger. unit Exp/Morale and MP`s are waaaay to high and the Sovs. are way to low so one gets there hopeless combat results. ooooh ! sorry, I couldn`t help myself.[:'(]

How would I "Fight Smarter or harder " ???? I`m really interested in fighting " forward" and for the cities ( like in the Real War, but when we do we get toasted and a wrecked army going into the winter.

BTw, why was there a need to nerf the ` 41 Sovs in 1.5...and mayber in `42 as well ?

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Richard III

Why did I lose 15 Ftrs & 3 Bmrs . to one Flak Company unit ??

I guess you didn't notice the 139 Fighters and 104 Bombers that showed up for the Germans, or the large number of SU in the battle, or the fact that you were outnumbered nearly 2:1 by units whose experience and morale probably is some 40 points higher? Those would contribute greatly to your results in this very typical battle for the Summer of 1941.