Russian Pig Cavalry

[hmatilai]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

The Germans should not lose a single division until 1943 minimum. There's indeed a problem here.

You're 100% right on this one, Pelton.

German VIII corps was badly mauled in August 1941 during Battle of Smolensk. 161st infantry division lost 75% of its combat strength and was overran.

I've always thought some Soviet blizzard success was also due to the burned out state of German units and units being greatly understrength (also local manpower superiority, better winter equipment).

In the game I don't much notice this, as Germans are always over 3 million men at the beginning of the blizzard, as losses are being replaced efficiently. I always thought that before blizzard German strength was 3.2 million men minus 0.8 million men already lost. Of course losses were being replaced, but was it really as efficient as it is in the game?

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

The Germans should not lose a single division until 1943 minimum. There's indeed a problem here.

You're 100% right on this one, Pelton.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda.

I shoulda been a millionaire.
I woulda been one, if I married rich.
I coulda been one, if I spent more time working and less time playing games.

What cosmically vital rule did I miss out on regarding why Germans shouldn't lose a single division until 1943 minimum?

Perhaps because the Red Army could hardly do that? Successful attacks, ok (in fact I would like to see Soviet units with bigger offensive CVs), but annihilated divisions...

One thing is bad play (here the player should be indeed punished). But here we see the Germans can have a more or less continuous line and yet the Soviets can do that; luck is also important as from my experience Cavalry Corps in 1941-42 winter only guarantee victories vs 1:1 ants. Above of that, helds are quite common.

The tactic is simple and yet effective.

And the problem is, if it is possible to do it, what is going to stop a Soviet player from doing this in many places along the whole front? 5, 10, 15, or 30 in Pelton's case German divisions (or a mix of divisions and regiments) annihilated... Not Stalingrad but...

[ComradeP]

You can destroy divisions the way you describe Pelton. It's not a particular new idea nor does it only work in the blizzard, in fact the Germans can use it to good effect to in summer 1941 if they want to pocket divisions with their infantry. The easiest way to prevent being a victim of that is not trying to hold a line (and always making sure HQ's are close to their units, as with somewhat reasonable MP's you can move out of the trap the Soviets set for you).

During blizzard ComradP they are far far better then any mobile unit.

Due to their CV's being doubled and there not being any other corps sized Soviet mobile units. I don't think we should base any changes on special situations, such as the doubling of CV's, but instead should look at what their CV's are in normal situations.

As I said, removing the blizzard MP reduction for cavalry units would already help a bit probably.

[Flaviusx]

It's not new at all. It's just the old zoc lock.

Pelton, the best procedure for seeking game adjustments is a well documented AAR. As humiliating as this might be for you in this case. Hopefully an AAR that doesn't involve pigs.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

The easiest way to prevent being a victim of that is not trying to hold a line (and always making sure HQ's are close to their units, as with somewhat reasonable MP's you can move out of the trap the Soviets set for you).

But as far as I know the Germans did not run away during the blizzard... ergo... you're basically saying the historical tactic will lead to x, 1x, 2x divisions annihilated. But this is not what happened [&:]

[ComradeP]

The ZOC locking isn't "a historical tactic."

The blizzard offensive was a classic case of attacking an exhausted, overextended foe. In the game, the Germans are neither exhausted nor overextended in the sectors where the Soviet blizzard offensive hit the hardest (AGC near Moscow, most players are overextended roughly south of Kursk, but not north of it). The game tries to create a somewhat historical situation by doubling Soviet CV's and halving German ones, in combination with the odds modifier.

All I can tell you regarding how to counter it is how to counter it within the constraints of how the game works now.

If the game gives you lemons, you could try to make orange juice but it isn't going to work.

[Redmarkus5]

Comrade P has hit another nail on the head. Trying to force the game to suddenly impose a historical set of conditions mid-war, regardless of what the players have done, is hugely problematic. This cuts both ways:

1. An Axis player has been more cautious than his historical counterparts, stopped attacking at the end of the summer and spent months digging in for winter. Nevertheless, the blizzard still drops his CVs massively. (The designers need to look back to the German WW1 experience in Russia to see that they were quite capable of enduring the winter if they planned for it).

2. A Soviet player attacks less recklessly during the Blizzard and ends up with a very large, relatively unscathed army in the spring. The game engine drops his CV to almost nil anyway, to ensure that the Axis can drive on Stalingrad.

This design philosophy is destined to fail. All a developer can do in reality is to set the starting conditions historically and apply a historical context (the rains will come, the snow will fall, movement/combat/supplies will be a problem, etc.). The relative strengths of the two armies mid-game should never need to be manipulated in this way - they should be a simple function of base numbers, logistics, production and losses.

If the players make the historical choices (say, by agreement beforehand) then, and only then, the game should produce results that are reasonably close to historical.

[dazoline II]

Seems the requirement is working from the other end Red:
Have historical outcomes no matter what the game play determines.

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Comrade P has hit another nail on the head. Trying to force the game to suddenly impose a historical set of conditions mid-war, regardless of what the players have done, is hugely problematic. This cuts both ways:

1. An Axis player has been more cautious than his historical counterparts, stopped attacking at the end of the summer and spent months digging in for winter. Nevertheless, the blizzard still drops his CVs massively. (The designers need to look back to the German WW1 experience in Russia to see that they were quite capable of enduring the winter if they planned for it).

2. A Soviet player attacks less recklessly during the Blizzard and ends up with a very large, relatively unscathed army in the spring. The game engine drops his CV to almost nil anyway, to ensure that the Axis can drive on Stalingrad.

This design philosophy is destined to fail. All a developer can do in reality is to set the starting conditions historically and apply a historical context (the rains will come, the snow will fall, movement/combat/supplies will be a problem, etc.). The relative strengths of the two armies mid-game should never need to be manipulated in this way - they should be a simple function of base numbers, logistics, production and losses.

If the players make the historical choices (say, by agreement beforehand) then, and only then, the game should produce results that are reasonably close to historical.

[jazman]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Comrade P has hit another nail on the head. Trying to force the game to suddenly impose a historical set of conditions mid-war, regardless of what the players have done, is hugely problematic. This cuts both ways:

1. An Axis player has been more cautious than his historical counterparts, stopped attacking at the end of the summer and spent months digging in for winter. Nevertheless, the blizzard still drops his CVs massively. (The designers need to look back to the German WW1 experience in Russia to see that they were quite capable of enduring the winter if they planned for it).

2. A Soviet player attacks less recklessly during the Blizzard and ends up with a very large, relatively unscathed army in the spring. The game engine drops his CV to almost nil anyway, to ensure that the Axis can drive on Stalingrad.

This design philosophy is destined to fail. All a developer can do in reality is to set the starting conditions historically and apply a historical context (the rains will come, the snow will fall, movement/combat/supplies will be a problem, etc.). The relative strengths of the two armies mid-game should never need to be manipulated in this way - they should be a simple function of base numbers, logistics, production and losses.

If the players make the historical choices (say, by agreement beforehand) then, and only then, the game should produce results that are reasonably close to historical.

Yes, this design philosophy will fail. All this gets hardcoded in the source code. God only knows the spaghetti code that results, in dealing with all these "special" cases.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: jazman

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
Comrade P has hit another nail on the head. ...

Yes, this design philosophy will fail. All this gets hardcoded in the source code. God only knows the spaghetti code that results, in dealing with all these "special" cases.

The only way to get all those "forced transitions" like to and from blizzard modeled correctly (and naturally shift the initiative, not abruptly) in a simulation is to account for the proper mechanics. In this example it would come down to the logistics backbone of the game again. Yet there is no such differentiation between summer equipment, or changed winter needs etc.

However, would it already be a sufficient approximation if supply would be a lot tighter? Either generally reduced across the board, or perhaps the delivery distances from railheads reduced by say 5 hexes?