Historical play

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: RCH

My original post was a polite way of saying that WITE is NOT historical. It could be greatly improved if it was historical.


The Soviet side is afraid of history. They refuse to acknowledge that if Mainstein was in charge of the eastern front instead of Hitler that anything would have been different.

I'd be delighted with a more historical game, one without the Lvov opening, a tougher Leningrad, more stringent logistics, etc. Axis players have little cause for complaint with the present state of the game, it seems to me. Nor would they necessarily be happier if it were more historical.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: RCH

My original post was a polite way of saying that WITE is NOT historical. It could be greatly improved if it was historical.

Not that i necesarrily disagree, cuz i dont. BUT do those that complain of this and its been so in many threads really want all that entails or would/do they have selective memory and there for rules to as such when it really comes down too it.


July 20 1941 In the Centre, Bock orders Guderian to close the ring at Smolensk before any further advance to the East.
12/08/1941 Hitler issues Directive No.34 which temporarily abandons Moscow as an objective in favour of the Ukraine.

So since we want historical play we need to have germans stop any advance after they take Smolensk. Sorry Bock says so. Then it takes 4 turns to Liquidate the pocket:
Smolensk pocket.
15/07/1941 Army Group Centre encircles Smolensk, along with a large body of Russians to the west of the City.
28/07/1941 German troops begin to eliminate the Russian forces trapped in the pocket to the west of Smolensk.
01/08/1941 Army Group Centre continues its liquidation of the Smolensk pocket. Soviet troops put up fierce resistance near Orsha and Vitebsk west of Smolensk.
05/08/1941 German troops capture Smolensk and take 310,000 Red Army prisoners as the remnants of 16th and 20th Armies surrender.
How long would it take in game now?

After that we need to have an order that makes the germans turn S for a number of turns driving to Kiev. Sorry, Hitler says so.

I've read it over and over again. The russians can do any thing they want the germans are tied into history and have no options, riiiight.
Do u really want historical play or is that the "brilliant" germans should have no strings attached where as there should be on russian side. We all know the russians where all a bunch of bafoons and that germans never made any strategical/operational mistakes so ofc german players shouldnt be "tied to history". Which they in fact arent since there no such rules in the game.

Sorry to say this, but is my and i repeat my opinion there is a huge double standart when it comes to what many ppl think is historical.
The quote below says it all. Eh, what if Stalin hadnt been in command for russian side. U apparently for german side want the fact to be that it could be Manstein at command why not make the same allowance for russian side!!!!!!!!!

Why cant i as a russian player make unlimted corps in 41?
Why cant i as a russian player make 44 OOB mech corps when i want
Why do making 1 inf corps in 42 cost me 1/3 of a turns AP?
Why are the russian NM moral limited to 45 in 42?
And so on and so on and on. Just like on the german side.

*Whom is it that is affraid of history?

The Soviet side is afraid of history. They refuse to acknowledge that if Mainstein was in charge of the eastern front instead of Hitler that anything would have been different.

Problem is that, that is an assumption. Sure we can theorize about what would have happend with Manstein in command and if he was better as a strategist, but since it never happened we cant know for sure. In in the end it cant be more than theorizing, and even with Manstain had been in command, who says the german logistical situasion could have improved? Could Manstein have made the alrdy more than excellent tactical abilties of the german troops even better?
Im not saying things wouldnt have been different. His insistance on try to get Hitler to use elastic defence says alot, but again the exactly same is true for the russian side in that case. Who says they cant "improve" on history.

I've read every single AAR in the last 6 pages of the AAR forum. in the games that has progress that far. In 2 games(Terje and TDV vs pelton), yes 2 games do the germans do worse than history in '41. In 1 its even debatle so, cuz they do better in some areas. In the rest they do better too much better. If u take that as any empherical evidence. What does that says about the current state of the german abilties and their supposedly being "tied down to history" comparily speaking at leased as far as '41 goes.


Peace out,

Rasmus

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

ORIGINAL: RCH

My original post was a polite way of saying that WITE is NOT historical. It could be greatly improved if it was historical.


The Soviet side is afraid of history. They refuse to acknowledge that if Mainstein was in charge of the eastern front instead of Hitler that anything would have been different.

I'd be delighted with a more historical game, one without the Lvov opening, a tougher Leningrad, more stringent logistics, etc. Axis players have little cause for complaint with the present state of the game, it seems to me. Nor would they necessarily be happier if it were more historical.

I would be too.

They wouldn't be happy with a more historical game. Some are already unhappy with the fact that they don't get to build anything. (Which was out of OKH's hands.) Don't like the TOE changes. (Again, historical.)

Seen alot of proposals to make the Russian side play just like they did in reality. (Why don't they stand and fight so we Axis players recreate those historical pockets.) But not a single Axis complaint about how they can take Leningrad/Moscow. Which is not historical.

[RCHarmon]

When you argue the the above Soviet positions you are just backing up my own statement. How come the Soviet forces are as weak as they are in 1941? Why is there a Lvov pocket? I know from history that Leningrad nor Moscow fell in 1941. Historically, if the drive on Moscow would have been continued it would have fallen as there were very few troops to stop them(not enough anyways). If that was the case then the advance in the south wouldn't have been as far. In this game the Axis player gets it all. How is that historical?

The Axis is too strong in 1941 and the Soviets are too strong in 1944. Two wrongs don't make a right. This game lacks a struggle between the opposing sides. It is all about supermen. The Axis wears the cape in 1941 and the Soviets get the cape sometime in 1943.

It is a bulldozer one way and then a bulldozer the other way. I would prefer seeing fluid battles and back and forth struggles. That is the way I imagine the game would flow with each player keeping themselves from making the historical mistakes.

I don't see a Soviet steamroller unless many Axis mistakes are made. I don't see a Axis victory after 1942. I think the Axis should have a way of knocking the Soviets out of the war in 1941 or 1942. 1943 and 1944 should be back and forth.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: RCH

When you argue the the above Soviet positions you are just backing up my own statement.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
I'd be delighted with a more historical game

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
I would be too

ORIGINAL: My self
Not that i necesarrily disagree, cuz i dont

Exactly, I dont see any "Russians" opposing more historical play. Problem is u follow up with

ORIGINAL: RCH
The Soviet side is afraid of history. They refuse to acknowledge that if Mainstein was in charge of the eastern front instead of Hitler that anything would have been different.

Where u directly and also implies at leased the 3 of us read it like that. Underlining that i cant speak for Aurelian nor Flaviusx, but my assumption from there posts are and they are in agreement, but feel free too correct me. That there is more to ur position other than there is a problem with the game historically speaking.
U say "we" are afraid of history, i say we arent. Just read 3 above responces.
I think we would love that Moscow and Lenningrad didnt fall every other game.
U further say we refuse to acknowledge that if Manstein was in charge that things would be different. Implying that some how the germans are shortchanged. At leased u dont follow up with the same exact thing could be said of russian side if a similar change in command is done.

If u read the forums u would IMHO see a fairly frequently as of the last few months voiced opinion on how this game is totally biased against the germans. I think a number of ppl are really tired of this cuz there seem to be no acknowledgement from a number of this voiced opioniers(made up word?) to see what is really going on in the game. That there are many limits on the soviet side and that AARs clearly show the german side in '41 and frequently in '42 doing much better than historical and this is ignored.

I think if u hadnt made the 2nd statement that the responce u would have recieved would have been much different.

ORIGINAL: RCH
How come the Soviet forces are as weak as they are in 1941? Why is there a Lvov pocket? I know from history that Leningrad nor Moscow fell in 1941.

Agree.

Historically, if the drive on Moscow would have been continued it would have fallen as there were very few troops to stop them(not enough anyways). If that was the case then the advance in the south wouldn't have been as far. In this game the Axis player gets it all. How is that historical?

Ok, not that i necesarry disagree with u, but would u make the acknowledgement that in order to continue the advance towards Moscow earlier germans in fact stray from history?
Again not that, that necesarily is a problem. Its a game, but if the germans are allowed to stray from history why shouldnt the same be true for the russian side. Moving troops to stop such an attempt and there for it might not have succeded any way.

This is a typical problem to me with what ifs in wargames. If side A only had done B, C would have happened. It totally ignores that the fact that life nor war isnt static. If side A had done B, why assume that side X would have done the same as they did in history and not tried to counter move B. Possibly nolifying that C would have happened, by their own counter moves.

The Axis is too strong in 1941 and the Soviets are too strong in 1944. Two wrongs don't make a right. This game lacks a struggle between the opposing sides. It is all about supermen. The Axis wears the cape in 1941 and the Soviets get the cape sometime in 1943.

I agree in 2 wrongs dont make a right and its all about supermen. As to when or if the russians get it im not so sure as u are. We havent seen that many 1.05+ games get that far yet and i think as ppl start to learn from AARs from better ppl that a few things might suprise ppl in how later war balance is. Alot ofc depence in diffence of player quality, how '41 and 42 goes and so on, so its very hard to generalize.

Ill make a bold statement. I think if we would see, but we wont, as a patch with alt scn victory conditions is comming and ppl will start to play that. That we would see alot less russian minor victories.
Reason for that u can start to see in Peltons later AARs and Q-balls too. It will take some time to perfect and trinkle down to lesser players.
We will see a reverse of the 1.04 fort situasion. If u have any skillz as a german player u by early to mid '42 u dont need APs to optimze ur C&C as u can have done it by then. U will need very few APs to change occational leaders but else its basicly free APs once u assume the defence. This means u only got 2 thing to use APs for. HQ build up pushing russians futher bakc and to make West wall after west wall. Use APs to attach Constr units or if u even smarter move OKH up in range an lock it with lots of Constr units. This will mean the russian will hafta fight its way through Fort 4 lines after fort 4 lines. That the germans can fall back into as is needed.
This will stall offensives immensly. u will rarely see russians "run" wild. Throw in German pz stacks still being supermen on exposed russian position as they advance, and then withdraw the pz units behind the fort 4 lines.
Im not saying every german player will be able too it does require skill but as its shown in AARs over time the skill will spead.

It is a bulldozer one way and then a bulldozer the other way. I would prefer seeing fluid battles and back and forth struggles. That is the way I imagine the game would flow with each player keeping themselves from making the historical mistakes.

I don't see a Soviet steamroller unless many Axis mistakes are made. I don't see a Axis victory after 1942. I think the Axis should have a way of knocking the Soviets out of the war in 1941 or 1942. 1943 and 1944 should be back and forth.

Dont disagree if a german victory means an artifically constructed victory as in certain conditions, understanding that it wouldnt mean a victory in real life.
As too fluincy. Problem is it will "never" happen. Players game the system, thats how players are. Any one(if a player) on defence will try and make the game non fluid, in order to win. I dont see the combat engine as of now achieve what u want and what ever changes are made, ppl will game. Periode.
Also one has to understand that the eastern front wasnt per say fluid. AGS was yeah, but AGC and AGN was from early '42 until mid '44 very much static. Any losses of hexes in offensives can be meassure in fairly few hexes. Even Operation Mars didnt achieve that much in terms of territory, other than straitning out the Rzhev salient. I'd stipulate that ppl tend to foucs on AGS pre mid 44 and say that is how the eastern front was. Cuz that is where the "fun" is. Problem is in reality it was only "1/2" of the front. Rest was static warfare in large, this is history. Not to say there wasnt fluiency cuz there obviously was, but it usually came a price not depicted in game as of now.


Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Aurelian]

One wonders just how Soviet players are afraid of history. Being that history is on their side to begin with.

I have yet to see any Axis player beg to reproduce all of Hitler's and OKH's mistakes. Wanting the Soviet ones in the game, they sure do.

The way logistics are, the offensive is favored. Some players, Michael T and Pelton, have shown just what they can do with it.

And historical logistics wouldn't allow it.

So, just *who* is afraid again?

[vicberg]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I'd be delighted with a more historical game, one without the Lvov opening, a tougher Leningrad, more stringent logistics, etc. Axis players have little cause for complaint with the present state of the game, it seems to me. Nor would they necessarily be happier if it were more historical.

And a less brutal blizzard against the Germans? Then I'm on board. The blizzard is not historical either. The Soviet counter-offensive of 41 did 600k of casualties for the entire offensive. The germans can lose 500k in the first week of the blizzard alone and that's with the Soviets doing nothing! The blizzard is overblown. I would like to see the 1/3 of CV against soviet shock troops, not their entire army.

[Flaviusx]

The blizzard rules are a fudge. It's probably the best we can do with the existing logistical engine, but it is a fudge.

[entwood]

Regimental Breakdown should cost Admin Points. This is one small step against Lvov and other regiment gambits. It won't fix them but Regimental Breakdown is currently exploited. It is a commander's decision and action as much as any other and should cost AP, and is a doable fix.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: entwood

Regimental Breakdown should cost Admin Points. This is one small step against Lvov and other regiment gambits. It won't fix them but Regimental Breakdown is currently exploited. It is a commander's decision and action as much as any other and should cost AP, and is a doable fix.

That wouldn't be my fix. The real problem is the surprise turn mechanics are borked and need a do over.

Quick and dirty fix: give Soviet units full movement on the first turn. Then they'd probably break the pocket every time. But even that is a band aid.

[entwood]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

ORIGINAL: entwood

Regimental Breakdown should cost Admin Points. This is one small step against Lvov and other regiment gambits. It won't fix them but Regimental Breakdown is currently exploited. It is a commander's decision and action as much as any other and should cost AP, and is a doable fix.

That wouldn't be my fix. The real problem is the surprise turn mechanics are borked and need a do over.

Quick and dirty fix: give Soviet units full movement on the first turn. Then they'd probably break the pocket every time. But even that is a band aid.

...pretty good idea...actually that Front or District, forces under Kirponos, were much better prepared than the other districts. An exception could/should apply there and is very justifiable.

seems pretty easy to do with Leader Rolls, then things won't be the same every game.

[RCHarmon]

I am not a Axis only player. I would like to have historical plausibility with either side I play. If the Axis and more especially the Soviet play testers had spoken up about the 1941 blizzard before the games release a lot of problems would have been headed off. The main argument would have been that it is unacceptable because it is completely unhistorical. The released blizzard and the current less severe blizzard are unhistorical. Imagine if this would have been addressed when it should have been?

[Flaviusx]

Many of the testers, myself included, felt the blizzard was too strong before release. I fully expected changes.

The problem with the blizzard is that in order to get it right, the logistical system needs a do over. The game imposes a variety of penalties during the blizzard that really should occur naturally as a result of logistical failure, but don't. So it tries to deal with that indirectly via CV hits, attrition, etc. As I already said, it is a fudge. Until that happens, we're stuck with what we've got. Indeed, many of the problems the game has right now are a product of the logistical system.

[Magnum88]

As an Axis player, I feel that the Lvov pocket is unrealistic historically but feel without it the game would be seriously unbalanced in the Soviet's favor. Even with it the Soviets still typically have a stronger Red Army going into the winter and the Axis advance is limited by logistics anyways. I feel some mechanism would be needed to force/encourage a Soviet player to put his forces at risk or he would even be stronger going into his winter offensive. Perhaps slower factory evacuations, spanning a variable amount of turns, or a phased manpower evacuation requiring time after the Axis gets within a certain distance. Both would necessitate a strong forward defense if either were to evacuate fully. If too costly the Soviet player could still withdraw and save his forces but at a long-term cost.

Also, from an admittedly bias point of view, I feel the first winter rules should be avoidable, perhaps with an AP expenditure. This was discuss (and rejected) during the initially discussion after the game was released but if the Soviet player can have perfect foresight and know he risks nothing by withdrawing why shouldn't the Axis be afforded the same courtesy. An Axis player knows that it will not be a one season war, winter is cold (a Russian winter especially so), and taking Moscow will not end the war. I feel a historic "standard" is being imposed to give the feel of the Eastern front, even when it veers off history from turn 1. I understand this also applies to the Axis with the rules changes that give them a the chance at a '42 offensive, even against a much stronger Red Army that avoids the huge historic blunders.

[gradenko2k]

That the Germans cannot "afford" to have the Lvov Pocket taken away from them in the context of the progress of the overall campaign does not mean that its continued existence is justifiable or acceptable. It just means that the removal of the Lvov Pocket cannot be done in a vacuum.

[janh]

There is a funny mix-up going on in this thread between the terms "historically ..." and what most people seem to refer to, "technically feasible", or "realistically accurate".
In some respects, both are somewhat linked: e.g. the logistics should have the historically correct, equaling technically feasible, supply rates, but with historical orders, these are quite arbitrary, and many may as well never have happened. Thus, it seems quite arbitrary what some ask for, i.e. historical orders for one side, but not the other. It just kills some of the freedom of a game if you tune it too far away from a "physically accurate simulation towards a reenactment with very narrow freedom.

The logistics model, on the other hand, which partially adds to high op-tempos (besides our hindsight, the non-existing "personal" consequences for rashness or commanding failures, and further factors) and requires "artificial rules" to mimic the 41 winter disaster and surprise, could theoretically be nailed down to facts.

ORIGINAL: Magnum88
As an Axis player, I feel that the Lvov pocket is unrealistic historically but feel without it the game would be seriously unbalanced in the Soviet's favor. Even with it the Soviets still typically have a stronger Red Army going into the winter and the Axis advance is limited by logistics anyways. I feel some mechanism would be needed to force/encourage a Soviet player to put his forces at risk or he would even be stronger going into his winter offensive.

With regard to Lvov, I consider it primarily an "artificial" consequence of the I-Go-U-Go system of the game, and the ratio between "long" turn length/high movement rate. If there were reaction orders for the units of the non-phasing player that would allow units with sufficient excess MP to move into a path of advance or blocking position (very much along the lines of reserve stance, or like the reaction feature for naval assets there are in WitP), Lvov would be much harder to pull off, and if it came so with strong detachments from AGC, much more plausible to accept. Such orders would make "defensive" fighting more fun, more systematic (rather than preposition guessing games), and ultimately would also decrease op-tempo in offensive moves.

The other thing to be noted about Lvov, seems to me still to be more general about Soviet forces in 41, and 42. Especially in 41 I find Soviet counters weak, quite weak, and nothing much to recon with on the advance until December. Their biggest threat is ZOC Locs, or cutting of my advanced spearheads, which could cost me valuable MPs for the next jump forward. But other than that, I fear a random mud turn more. And obviously, without fighting value, you cannot blame a Soviet for trading space versus ground. Which, for reasons of the 1st blizzard rules, you can presently neither blame Axis.

If you play AI, you have to bump levels of to >=130% moral in 1941 to get somewhat resistance-capable Soviet counters. And even then, I still lack the feel that the Soviets permanently counterattack, costly or not, to delay etc. -- perhaps I might be mislead by my choice of literature, but not only in the 1st two weeks against AGC they heavily counterattacked and created some crisis as well as heavy permanent losses to PzGrp 1, but also at Bialystok, Minsk, later at the landbridge between Vitebesk and Smolensk or at the Dauga bridgheads and Pskov/Ostrov the Russian attacked multiple times on tactical as well as strategic levels. In the process, they severely attrited themselves, but also in some occasions successfully delayed advances, endangered the rings of pockets, and also caused losses to the Germans.

If the Soviet units were more dangerous -- for PBEM as well as against AI -- Axis op-tempo in 41 would have to be slower and more cautious, and not with probabilities to close to certainty result in the loss of Leningrad and Moscow. Gaining these two cities would mean a lot more in terms of challenge and skill. So since you can't bump up moral by skill settings in PBEM, I would think patching up Soviet intial morale a bit would help. Could be done with the editor in part, but unfortunately the NM proficiency factor can't be modded. For AI games, the morale setting is your friend.

Another factor to be considered when talking about the weak Soviets in 41 and their lack of ability to put up a fight (without useless waste of counters), is certainly in this context also the consequence of the 1st turn surprise, and there mainly again the Lvov opening: after a Lvov opening, a lot of the strongest Soviet units are gone, after which a Soviet player is in the disastrous situation to shuffle forces down south and stabilize the AO there; necessarily this means that his forces contesting AGN and AGC will also be much weaker than the contemporary ones, and the rest you can guess yourself. Similarly, aided by hindsight, Axis successes in AGN and AGC areas are much accelerated compared to contemporary progress, and Soviets loose more units quicker.
Riga and Minks, for example, fall quicker than they did, maybe because Axis mobile movement rater are "quite high" (with respect to the situation), maybe just because hindsight gives us perfect knowledge of the force setup of the Soviets, and which allows us -- in conjunction with purely static defense stances -- to optimize the 1st turn to gain the most at the least risk.

All that must necessarily have far reaching consequences for game play. Essentially after an "optimized 1st turn", the Soviet side is in a much worse position than back in history, and it will take a long time to recover -- long after 1st blizzard it seems from most present AARs.
When playing the AI I can only suggest you not to do Lvov, and to dial up AI moral setting at least for the initial ca 8 turns to 130, until you feel your situation becomes a bit more strained. You should see some AI attempts to counterattack on a small scale, which feels much more interesting than at <=110%. I find it a lot more challenging, and closer to what I "imagine" that the fighting and uncertainties of war must have been. If you want to feel more strain on the logistics level, you can even not use the RR units for the first few turns, or just limit them to two hexes per turn -- you will really outrun your supply, and between Minsk and Smolensk you will have to take a refit break!

ORIGINAL: Magnum88
Also, from an admittedly bias point of view, I feel the first winter rules should be avoidable, perhaps with an AP expenditure.

One of the design decisions is obviously that Germans always live through the logistic breakdown and the blizzard surprise of Soviet large scale counterattacks. Much as it is a design decisions that force positioning at the start of each GC is a constant. Neither side can apply hindsight there. It would be nice, though, if those special rules like the 1st blizzard ones, or the 1st turn surprise, were open to modding. As much as it would be nice if there was a "fictional GC", where players prior to the first turn could repositions and reassign units, even just within some limits. That would recreate some nice uncertainties and interesting games?

If you do not like the 1st winter penalties, and want to introduce some of them from supply, then you can avoid to move all units into cover early, as well as tone down the AI moral level to 100, which will remedy some of the force multiplier issues. You could reduce it to 80-90 as well as increase you admin, logisitics and transport levels in december if you want to mimic a farsighted preplanning. Continuously dial AI moral level back up to 110 by February, after which I keep it stable (or reset it to higher values, if you want a bigger challenge). Try and find your own recipe...

[janh]

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000
That the Germans cannot "afford" to have the Lvov Pocket taken away from them in the context of the progress of the overall campaign does not mean that its continued existence is justifiable or acceptable. It just means that the removal of the Lvov Pocket cannot be done in a vacuum.

It has a lot to do with expectations, and amongst Axis players, the expectations seem to be prevailing that taking a line much further East than historical, i.e. including Leningrad, Moscow and at least the Stalino area taken, should be rather reliably achievable. It all just depends on these expectations, where people think the balance ought to be, and what they think the Germans could and should have done historically.

[RCHarmon]

How would the game play if all movement was halved and the turns doubled?


This game relies so much on pockets that it is hard to imagine.


I have never been a fan of the IGUGO system, but for this type of game its hard to envision an alternative until AIs get much better which is not possible now.