Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now?

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Klydon: play the scenario. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest you have not.

The last time I was able to play without a Lvov opening in a campaign game was my first game against James long ago...and I had him slowed down to a crawl down south. So it can be done. He went right back to the Lvov opening in our second game, and that one he did much better and only narrowly missed taking Moscow. Standing your ground pays big dividends in the south...provided you have an army to do it with.

Running away is what happens when all 3 border Front get annihilated. You literally have no choice but to runaway, there's no way you can form a coherent front after a standard Lvov opening. You can delay and harass a bit, but not more.

Actually, I have played that scenario along with most of the other 1941 scenarios. It is what I started out with before making the jump to the full campaigns. It can be brutal. There are a lot of Russians to deal with and I did win the scenario in the end, but not by a lot. The Russians seemed very strong for a long time and eventually I was able to wear them down and got some pretty good advances the last couple of turns of the scenario. I have not recently said it, but I have mentioned in the past the same point you have and that is for players who think the southern tier of Russian armies simply isn't up to snuff in slowing down the Germans, they need to play that scenario and they will learn otherwise. What blows them out of the water is the extra forces brought down from PG2.

Last I checked, it should be the objective of the Germans to destroy all three border fronts as much as possible while making an advance as deep as possible with as much as possible.

We (the community) can go back and forth on the RL feasability of the Lvov opening and if the Germans had the ability to carry it out or not. Everyone seems fine with AGC getting to (and past) Minsk on the first turn because it happen historically but there are a lot of people that are up in arms over a shorter German drive in the south that results in the Lvov pocket, despite the terrain being more open and the use of the equivalent of 4 panzer corps vs the initial 2 panzer corps that AGS has to work with on the opening turn. (essentially using 7-8 strong mobile units vs the 4 that are available).

[Manstein63]

If the German Player does the historical move with 1st Panzer Gruppe there is nothing to stop the Russian player from railing out all of those forces that would have been trapped by the Lvov gambit  so basically the german player is dammed if he does or dammed if he doesn't. I think the best way to solve the problem would be by tweaking the supply rules so that to be in full supply a unit will have to trace supply as normal but it parent HQ will also have to trace a path to its higher HQ but incresing the distance allowed as you go to a higher HQ  for example unit to Korp/corp HQ 10 hexes Korp/corp HQ to Armee /Army HQ 20 hexes  Armee / Army HQ to Armee Gruppe / Front HQ 40 hexes & finally Armee Gruppe / Front HQ to OKH ? STAVKA 100 hexes. You could then limit the supply to the unit by giving them 25% drop in supply for each turn that they didn't fulfill supply rules up to a maximum of 75%. This would still allow the Lvov pocket on T1  but any subsequent combat by the divisions transferred from AGC less and less effective the longer they stayed outside their regular supply chain. You could always transfer the units from the AGC PzGs to AGS PzG control by expending admin points but I think that would be more accurate historically.
 
Manstein63

[marcpennington]

To prevent the Lvov pocket, would it be possible to add in a line which Army Group Center units couldn't operate south of on turn 1, similar to the already existing line in the game which Axis satellite forces can't operate north of? There might also need to be a line on turn 1 where Army Group South can't operate south of, as a partial (yet in the end pretty much doomed in the long run) Lvov pocket is pretty easy to pull off with AGS forces alone.

[entwood]

Quite a few good ideas have been submitted. I hope that these topics can spur some new development. New games in this series are a long way off...

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: map66

To prevent the Lvov pocket, would it be possible to add in a line which Army Group Center units couldn't operate south of on turn 1, similar to the already existing line in the game which Axis satellite forces can't operate north of? There might also need to be a line on turn 1 where Army Group South can't operate south of, as a partial (yet in the end pretty much doomed in the long run) Lvov pocket is pretty easy to pull off with AGS forces alone.

I am trying to understand the logic here. Why would such restrictions need to be put into the game simply to prevent a Lvov pocket? Would you put the same type of restrictions on PG3 so the Germans can't use it for a heavier than historical drive/opening towards the Leningrad area?

Part of the reason to play the game is to do something different, not replay history.

[marcpennington]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

ORIGINAL: map66

To prevent the Lvov pocket, would it be possible to add in a line which Army Group Center units couldn't operate south of on turn 1, similar to the already existing line in the game which Axis satellite forces can't operate north of? There might also need to be a line on turn 1 where Army Group South can't operate south of, as a partial (yet in the end pretty much doomed in the long run) Lvov pocket is pretty easy to pull off with AGS forces alone.

I am trying to understand the logic here. Why would such restrictions need to be put into the game simply to prevent a Lvov pocket? Would you put the same type of restrictions on PG3 so the Germans can't use it for a heavier than historical drive/opening towards the Leningrad area?

Part of the reason to play the game is to do something different, not replay history.

Put simply, given that the game is IGO-UGO, the Soviets have no chance to respond to the Lvov pocket in game terms. By the time the Soviet player starts his turn, the Lvov pocket (or semi-pocket) is doomed. Restricting Axis behaivor of turn 1 would simply even the field a bit---- while Soviet deployments are set, so too are (very) basic restrictions in place for German units in area of operation.

In game terms, the Germans have a signifigant surprise advantage on turn 1, such as the low cost in MP for deliberate attacks and such. Their panzers are fully gassed with extra fuel stocks. I would argue that a large reason for these advantages was that the Germans had developed detailed plans and logistical resources tied to specific axes of advance. For the German to be able to veer wildly off course such as diverting the bulk of one's armor from AGC to AGS on turn 1, but still take advantage of these surprise rules, while the Soviet side has no opportunity to modify his deployments accordingly, strikes me in game terms as a serious problem.

Obviously, this is only a factor on turn 1--- after that, I of course am all in favor of allowing alternate histories to take it's course.

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: map66

ORIGINAL: Klydon

ORIGINAL: map66

To prevent the Lvov pocket, would it be possible to add in a line which Army Group Center units couldn't operate south of on turn 1, similar to the already existing line in the game which Axis satellite forces can't operate north of? There might also need to be a line on turn 1 where Army Group South can't operate south of, as a partial (yet in the end pretty much doomed in the long run) Lvov pocket is pretty easy to pull off with AGS forces alone.

I am trying to understand the logic here. Why would such restrictions need to be put into the game simply to prevent a Lvov pocket? Would you put the same type of restrictions on PG3 so the Germans can't use it for a heavier than historical drive/opening towards the Leningrad area?

Part of the reason to play the game is to do something different, not replay history.

Put simply, given that the game is IGO-UGO, the Soviets have no chance to respond to the Lvov pocket in game terms. By the time the Soviet player starts his turn, the Lvov pocket (or semi-pocket) is doomed. Restricting Axis behaivor of turn 1 would simply even the field a bit---- while Soviet deployments are set, so too are (very) basic restrictions in place for German units in area of operation.

In game terms, the Germans have a signifigant surprise advantage on turn 1, such as the low cost in MP for deliberate attacks and such. Their panzers are fully gassed with extra fuel stocks. I would argue that a large reason for these advantages was that the Germans had developed detailed plans and logistical resources tied to specific axes of advance. For the German to be able to veer wildly off course such as diverting the bulk of one's armor from AGC to AGS on turn 1, but still take advantage of these surprise rules, while the Soviet side has no opportunity to modify his deployments accordingly, strikes me in game terms as a serious problem.

Obviously, this is only a factor on turn 1--- after that, I of course am all in favor of allowing alternate histories to take it's course.

But you appear to have no issue at all with the Germans doing the exact same thing in the AGC sector, where they must drive further, without the Russian forces reacting, to reach Minsk (and beyond) and in terrain that is not as open as the south.

The Germans had developed several plans, including a stronger drive in the south. (In fact, the southern plan is the one that probably had the most varients/changes), so it isn't like a stronger drive in the south just comes out of the blue.

It appears that many want to put severe restrictions on the Germans on their turn 1, simply because they move first, yet have few or no restrictions on the Russians on the Russian first turn.

[Smirfy]

Quite simply command and control in WitE as a mechanic does not work. Look at any military map of WWII and you will see Divisional, Corps and Army boundaries moving outside redesignating or passing through someone elses was a considerable effort and the operational range of HQ's much shorter. In WitE there is zero c+c and logistics gravity. Its a nonsense really. The admin idea in itself was good, the support unit idea credible but apart from that implementation and interaction with the units and map is poor. Hopefully WitW will have a better system after all practically every work covering the war in the west is about actual command and control successes or failures.

[entwood]

I would really like to see something or better yet 'some things'/enhancements still get implemented. I am pretty sure it could still be done, as this game deserves it.

[EisenHammer]

ORIGINAL: Klydon
Part of the reason to play the game is to do something different, not replay history.

Just saying...
If that is the case, then maybe the Germans shouldn't have a first turn surprise advantage. [;)]

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: EisenHammer

ORIGINAL: Klydon
Part of the reason to play the game is to do something different, not replay history.

Just saying...
If that is the case, then maybe the Germans shouldn't have a first turn surprise advantage. [;)]

Careful, there are a few around here that probably think that is a seriously good idea. [;)]

[EisenHammer]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

ORIGINAL: EisenHammer

ORIGINAL: Klydon
Part of the reason to play the game is to do something different, not replay history.

Just saying...
If that is the case, then maybe the Germans shouldn't have a first turn surprise advantage. [;)]

Careful, there are a few around here that probably think that is a seriously good idea. [;)]

Serious… think about it… would you be as stupid as Stalin, too think that the Germans would not attack… after all the intelligent reports from so many sources say that the Germans are going to attack.[:)]

[RCHarmon]

Sure, begin the game sometime in 1940 and then the Soviet player can start building his army then. Full range to get rid of crummy equipment and only the good equipment being built at optimum levels. Get a large army trained and filled out with SUs. Maybe even a preemptive attack. Sure, do it.

Go ahead and make the ultimate Soviet game. I wouldn't be surprised.

[AFV]

A big seller for sure. Bought by 20 or so Sovietphiles, who only play the AI because none of them want to be the Axis, lol.
 

[EisenHammer]

LOL... I was joking... At first... But I find it funny that pro-right wing Axis loving people flip out when you bring up something that not historical to their views.

But it ok... for them to change history whenever they want. Like the weak Russian winter offensive.

ORIGINAL: RCH
Go ahead and make the ultimate Soviet game. I wouldn't be surprised.

BTW… I gave up years of my life fighting against the soviet game. So you can stick it up your ass if you think I am a communist. You f***ing prick.

[RCHarmon]

ORIGINAL: EisenHammer

LOL... I was joking... At first... But I find it funny that pro-right wing Axis loving people flip out when you bring up something that not historical to their views.

But it ok... for them to change history whenever they want. Like the weak Russian winter offensive.

ORIGINAL: RCH
Go ahead and make the ultimate Soviet game. I wouldn't be surprised.

BTW… I gave up years of my life fighting against the soviet game. So you can stick it up your ass if you think I am a communist. You f***ing prick.

A bit testy this morning?

When have I ever accused you of being a communist?

Everyone is tough online.

[EisenHammer]

It's cool.
I'm fine.
Just don’t call me a communist.[;)]

[RCHarmon]

The post I made was a general post and not directed towards any one individual. There is a underlying debate on this site between the Soviet side and the Axis side. I feel the Axis side is unfairly suppressed. Either way, it should never get personal.

BTW my family has fought in every major war the U.S. has been involved in going back to the Revolution. We have always fought within the U.S. Army. I am no Axis fan boy. I would just like to see a historically believable representation.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: RCH

The post I made was a general post and not directed towards any one individual. There is a underlying debate on this site between the Soviet side and the Axis side. I feel the Axis side is unfairly suppressed. Either way, it should never get personal.

Hi Rich,

When u say u feel the axis side is being suppresed do u mean, as in ppl being "pro" one or other side/percieved so, on these forums or do u mean sides in game?

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[RCHarmon]

I made a post a long time ago about what if the Axis player is able to do better than history. Immediately, it was labeled another Axis whining post. I found that other players were likewise labeled because of similar posts. The atmosphere has changed a bit since then, but at times hostility seems to be directed to players who post about Axis concerns.

I used to believe that the game was geared towards the Soviet player and I thought that because, among other things, that first released 1941 blizzard was really an equalizer and punishing to the Axis player regardless. I have since come to understand that because of the dysfunctional supply system the 1941 blizzard is used as the means to "set things right". Manipulating if you will.

It does seem strange that every dev decision leans towards the Soviet. This point is highly debatable. Lets look at the units that are withdrawn, but were really destroyed at Stalingrad. The unit gets withdrawn with full TOE when in actuality (if you want to get technical) those men were marching to Siberia. Withdraw an empty shell ok, but leave the men and experience and moral behind. Every decision seems to be this way, never what the Axis player would chose.

I know the devs have explained why they have done certain things. When playing Axis, against a human opponent, I just scratch my head and just continually ask myself why certain dev decisions were made. I know what they have explained, but there certainly must be a better way. The whole C&C business needs to be rethought-out and the air war etc........

The released 1941 blizzard is now gone. It cannot be said by me that the game is heavily Soviet based as the Axis player now retains greater offensive power. The Axis player now has greater ability than was historically possible, in my opinion. So much of the failings of the game again comes to the supply situation as a major discontinuity in the game. I don't think either side is happy about how the game plays out.

I have limited experience with the Soviet side. I have played some smaller scenarios and have started 3 1941 campaigns against the AI in order to start to learn the Soviets. In a lot of ways it is really neat to play the 1941 campaign as Soviets. You get to design and build up an army. If I continue to play this game it will be as Soviets as I find playing the Axis frustrating.

Even the Soviet side is hampered especially in the early game as they are just too weak. Weak and disorganized yes, but the Soviets were able to put up a few fights along the way. The historical capacity of the southern front to resist is not there. The Lvov pocket discussion that is ongoing shows game failing.

I don't see any struggle between forces with this game. Mostly it is bulldozer one way and then bulldozer back again.

I expect a great struggle on the eastern front. This is not what we have.