1.04 The Wolf and the Bear (no Gids)

[Tarhunnas]

Otherwise, nothing special happening Turn 186. The Rumanians are still on the right side, despite the loss of Braila and Galata and a couple of towns. AGN is gradually evacuating Estonia. Only a rearguard is left Narva. An overview of the front at the beginning of 1945.

[Tarhunnas]

Losses and OOB Turn 186. January 4 1945.

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

It will be good to see the debate turned to whether Soviet players are building the "right" army to do the job.

Agree, but no one knows what they should be building as the Russians, as there is no guidance material. I still think the game should include an historical Russian OOB, not build what you want. I think it would allow a better handle on game balance. Nevertheless, I'm working on a dry run of a GC while trying to build a (close to) historical Russian OOB in game. I have a hunch APs may restrict the building of a historical OOB. An unhistorical OOB thus distorts game balance...

[karonagames]

If you look at the games that get to summer 1943 and compare the OOBs to the 1943 campaign OOB, my guess is that player-built Soviet armies have a lot less artillery divisions. I used the 1943 Campaign OOB as my "build plan" for the Red army during 1942.

[Flaviusx]

It's like Bob says. The historical artillery parks as shown in the 43 and 44 scenarios are a good basis to work from. Which means, roughly, two dozen tube artillery divisions and a half dozen rocket artillery divisions. I would consider even building more than that, but that's the basic blueprint.

Near as I can tell, nobody is building anywhere near that much artillery. They've been forgotten in the rush to pump out rifle and mobile corps. But the Red Army is a stool that cannot stand on two legs alone. True combined arms operations will include all three elements in generous amounts.

[randallw]

"Artillery is the god of war." [:)][:D]

[Tarhunnas]

I won't argue the comparison with historical OOBs. However, in this game, the Soviets can push me back anywere they chose, along most of the line but not everywhere at once. I can't see how more artillery would make them advance faster. More and fully equipped Tank and Mech corps would help them advance faster, as I would have to be more careful not to be encircled, which would force me to retreat faster than I am doing. I suspect the Soviets are short on tanks in this game, and that does limit their pace of advance.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

I still predict (as I did long ago) Axis Victory... the Soviets are quite away from Berlin...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Flaviusx]

Tarhunnas, more artillery built earlier would have ground you to paste earlier and allowed the mobile units to rush forward earlier.

Yes, the Wehrmacht is broken now, and a little too late.

Leaving aside this particular game, every game I've seen thus far has a long, too long, stalemate period where the Soviet struggles to get any kind of offensive traction. Artillery gets you past that point. It is of course less useful in an exploitation situation.

Look at Idaho and Ketza's games, for example. Me, I would have been rolling out the big guns in a big way as quickly as possible. You want to stick panzers on the front lines in forts? Bring. It. On.

[karonagames]

I highly recommend that all players who focus solely on the 1941GC play practice games of 1942 and 1943 campaigns, even if it is only for one year. 1942 teaches the Axis how to run an offensive on a shoe string while the Soviets can practice building the army they will need for 1943. The 1943 Campaign allows the SU to practice combined arms, echeloned attacks that are needed to break through the current 1943 stalemates we are seeing in 1941 AARs; the Axis will learn how to survive, and attrition management skills.

I stated much earlier in this thread that you would win unless gids built more artillery divisions, but I then got nervous when you attacked in 1943, as the casualties you took reduced your manpower - you were "winning yourself to defeat", so I have been amazed that your sub-2m army is holding back the Red avalanche, but it looks like your withdrawal and the logistics system will save you.

[Peltonx]

The best Tarhunnas can hope for is a draw there are still 34 turns left 8 are mud, but he has to hold 39 VP's and Berlin on October 1st 1945.

Big A is right in the fact that the majority of Russian players have no idea what to build come 42-45. The biggest reason why is most games end for Russian players by early 42 as there are so few good German players for them to play. Most guys I play have played 4 to 6 games as russian and most ended for them in 41 or early 42(with them winning), so they lack the knowledge of what to build. they think the games a cake walk until they play an exp German player.

And your also right about winning yourself to defeat as German from 43 to end of war. The combat ratio is basicly 1 to 1.5 even when you get a retreat or route as a German from 43 on. So it is only helping to weaken your OOB if you counter attck, unless it is done with 100% panzer/mech units and still then only in cases to open pockets or possibly hold a river line during summer.

After November 1942 as German your forced to go almost 100% static, unless you can get an easy pocket of course.

Pelton

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

And your also right about winning yourself to defeat as German from 43 to end of war. The combat ratio is basicly 1 to 1.5 even when you get a retreat or route as a German from 43 on. So it is only helping to weaken your OOB if you counter attck, unless it is done with 100% panzer/mech units and still then only in cases to open pockets or possibly hold a river line during summer.

After November 1942 as German your forced to go almost 100% static, unless you can get an easy pocket of course.

I think you have a point there Pelton. There simply is no point in attacking for the Germans after 1942, as the cost/rewards of a successful attack are simply not worth it for the Axis. This is a problem in the game mechanics IMHO. Might this be an effect of the relative morale values? Perhaps late war Soviet morale should be a notch lower?

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

..., but he has to hold 39 VP's and Berlin on October 1st 1945.

I thought it was to hold 39 VP's or Berlin on October 1st 1945 (to get the draw)

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

ORIGINAL: Pelton

And your also right about winning yourself to defeat as German from 43 to end of war. The combat ratio is basicly 1 to 1.5 even when you get a retreat or route as a German from 43 on. So it is only helping to weaken your OOB if you counter attck, unless it is done with 100% panzer/mech units and still then only in cases to open pockets or possibly hold a river line during summer.

After November 1942 as German your forced to go almost 100% static, unless you can get an easy pocket of course.

I think you have a point there Pelton. There simply is no point in attacking for the Germans after 1942, as the cost/rewards of a successful attack are simply not worth it for the Axis. This is a problem in the game mechanics IMHO. Might this be an effect of the relative morale values? Perhaps late war Soviet morale should be a notch lower?

I like to say it was a morale issue, but I think Flaviusx might be right it is that the retreat loses for russians is to low. The combat ratio was changed after 1v1=2v1 was removed, I think that the increased lose ratio is snow balling later in war.

Just my 2 cents, proably dev's alrdy know the answer. Germans even late war with right troops were able to hand out crushing backhand blows.

There is a problem and it should be addressed.

Hopefully Flaviusx can get them to atleast look into it.

Not much fun being the bunching bag for 175 odd turns out of 225..

Pelton

[Peltonx]

I guess that if you tweaked German morale higher would be the morale answer, but I dont know for sure.

I just like to see game based on in game results and not a time line. The taking of citys could hold German morale constant for an example.

That way the VP system would stay same, but if German takes citys xyz German morale holds.

[Flaviusx]

I think retreat losses are too high, Pelton, not too low. For both sides. But the Soviets are in a much better position to absorb them thanks to their replacements. The Germans, on the other hand, can be grinded down to a nub with lots of retreats. It is part of the reason, I believe, that late war Germans are having such difficulties with armaments, too. All these retreats are seriously stressing the armament pool, more so than even manpower.

I think German morale is fine. (I'm beginning to hate this word morale. It's proficiency, goddamit. This evil word is causing no end of troubles and confusing players. It needs to go away. I hope it does so in WitW.) Soviet "morale" is both too low and too high. It is too low in 42, and too high in 44. The base NM of 60 in 1944 isn't that high in of itself, but in practice that figure is nominal at best. A huge chunk of the Red Army, perhaps a majority of it, will be getting bonuses of one kind or another, so the actual proficiency is much higher than the nominal one, even on average, and in certain cases much higher. You can stack certain bonuses and get very high values indeed.

In 42, OTOH, those bonuses aren't quite so widespread, and the vast majority of the Red Army will be operating at the NM norm, which at 40 is ridiculously low. It's a struggle to keep units from lapsing into unready status at that level on static fronts, due to attrition losses. That's how bad it is.

[karonagames]

Might this be an effect of the relative morale values? Perhaps late war Soviet morale should be a notch lower?

Relative morale levels are certainly an issue, but the Red Army's Artillery and Air Force also are causing a lot more Axis casualties in 1943-45 than they were in 1941/42, which is historically correct, but as usual, whether the game engine currently reflects this with reasonable/acceptable accuracy is open to debate - many of the testers (and ex-testers) continue to raise the retreat issue in the dev. forums but as yet no formal response has been given.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Soviet "morale" is both too low and too high. It is too low in 42, and too high in 44. The base NM of 60 in 1944 isn't that high in of itself, but in practice that figure is nominal at best. A huge chunk of the Red Army, perhaps a majority of it, will be getting bonuses of one kind or another, so the actual proficiency is much higher than the nominal one, even on average, and in certain cases much higher. You can stack certain bonuses and get very high values indeed.

In 42, OTOH, those bonuses aren't quite so widespread, and the vast majority of the Red Army will be operating at the NM norm, which at 40 is ridiculously low. It's a struggle to keep units from lapsing into unready status at that level on static fronts, due to attrition losses. That's how bad it is.

I think that sounds reasonable Flavius! I am not sure Soviet proficiency (I agree with you, that is what it should have been called, let's use this word from now on) is too high in 1942, but I am sure it is in 1944-45. In 1944 certainly, and probably even in 1945 I think German proficiency was way over Soviet, even if they were closer than earlier in the war.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Soviet "morale" is both too low and too high. It is too low in 42, and too high in 44. The base NM of 60 in 1944 isn't that high in of itself, but in practice that figure is nominal at best. A huge chunk of the Red Army, perhaps a majority of it, will be getting bonuses of one kind or another, so the actual proficiency is much higher than the nominal one, even on average, and in certain cases much higher. You can stack certain bonuses and get very high values indeed.

In 42, OTOH, those bonuses aren't quite so widespread, and the vast majority of the Red Army will be operating at the NM norm, which at 40 is ridiculously low. It's a struggle to keep units from lapsing into unready status at that level on static fronts, due to attrition losses. That's how bad it is.

I think that sounds reasonable Flavius! I am not sure Soviet proficiency (I agree with you, that is what it should have been called, let's use this word from now on) is too high in 1942, but I am sure it is in 1944-45. In 1944 certainly, and probably even in 1945 I think German proficiency was way over Soviet, even if they were closer than earlier in the war.

Russian "fill in the blank" +5 1942
Russian "fill in the blank" -5 1944

Hmm I guess what me and Tarhunnas are saying is German loses for winning battles 1943 is way way to high.

I think retreat loses are fine from 1941 to 1945. The German army would never lose if retreat loses were turned down any more all things being equal

The game is far from historical as far as losses goes in most games.



Pelton

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

Might this be an effect of the relative morale values? Perhaps late war Soviet morale should be a notch lower?

Relative morale levels are certainly an issue, but the Red Army's Artillery and Air Force also are causing a lot more Axis casualties in 1943-45 than they were in 1941/42, which is historically correct, but as usual, whether the game engine currently reflects this with reasonable/acceptable accuracy is open to debate - many of the testers (and ex-testers) continue to raise the retreat issue in the dev. forums but as yet no formal response has been given.

I think German air forse should be causing far higher ground loses then they are.

WITW (1940)will really need to turn this up as the Franch and English has far better tanks and artillary over all, plus more men and equipement. Morale was not an issue or logistics.

The Western allies lost France because of one thing, tactical air support from the LW.

Germany did the right thing by building an airforse based on tactical air support and not wasting limited resoures on an air forse based on strategic bombing.The technology was just not there for strategic bombing to work until the 1970's.

The western allies (1944) were able to go keep loses at a 1v1 ratio because they had control over the air space. They them selfs were not ever effective at tactical air support, but were great at blowing up things behind the front. My grandfather did not like hearing the sound of any planes when he was at the front because many times the allies bombs landed on their own troops. Germans just had a great command and control system, that we basicly copied after the war and made better with time and technology.

The Stuka could drop as bomb 100 feet from friendly troops, kinda like a modern day laser guided bomb. I beleive it was only plane to be a true dive bomber. Vertical dive bomber.

Pelton