A question about current state of balance and tactic

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: glvaca


What you are saying I interpret as: neither side is forced to make the same errors as were made historically. I'm all for.
In the same breath you mention that Germany can't win because they didn't win historically. Hmmm, you notice the contradiction?

As to the Op's point, my initial post stated that I was happy to take the gift of a "runaway defense". Of course I was defining a "win" as avoiding the Soviet victory conditions, not as forcing a Soviet resignation in 41.

As to this point, I don't feel that it is any contradiction at all: If neither side makes ANY historical mistakes OR any original mistakes of similar amplitude ((assuming that there are any "mistakes of similar amplitude" that were not made historically [:D]) than victory will go to the side with overwhelming force.

[kg_1007]

I have played 3 as the Soviet(well, 2 plus a current one that is in mid 42) and 3 as the German..all against AI.
All three of the ones I played as the German against AI, I lost, but to be honest, 1 of them I lost by quitting.
All three I have played as the Russian, again, against AI, I either won, or am winning the current one. I have not used the "run away" against the computer, except to the better terrain along the major rivers. In all of them I retreated to those rivers, losing my share along the way, but held at the rivers except where I allowed a 'hole' to develop, and then closed the hole once the AI had pushed through several divisions, cut them off, destroy them, rinse, repeat.
I won by early offense however...from looking at how that developed, I am almost positive had I run away and given up half of my country early on, there is no way I would have won, at least, as early as I did.

[hjc]

Regarding the controversy of "running away" or "strategic withdrawal" -

I suspect part of what we are seeing is frustration at the fact that using hindsight we can avoid mistakes that were made in history - but our opponents can too. Both sides can benefit: Germany can avoid Hitler's micro-management of the OKH where he frequently switched focus and diluted the schwerpunkt - concentration of already meagre forces - into multiple directions that weakened the chances of a knock-out blow.

Likewise, the Soviets can apply in 1941 the lessons that were starting to be learned in 1942. For example the German (historically and in-game) desire for encirclements - which require the Soviets to play their part and fall into a trap. Case Blau phases I and II despite taking large amounts of territory failed to achieve their hoped for encirclements because the Soviets had started to learn some lessons and strategically fell back to avoid the obvious - despite the risk of these withdrawals turning into disorderly routs. Stalin knew this couldn't go on forever hence after the loss of the Donets basin his "Not one step back" decree (order no 227). Soviet players likewise do have to eventually make a stand.

I know I'm simplifying, but if we want to have some self determination in the game and not be bound to the errors of history then we all have to accept that it's a give and take process.

I have no dog in this fight, and can see that freed from the straight-jacket of historical errors both sides in the game lose some of their historical advantages, while also losing some of the hinderances to effective operations.

As an axis player I don't want to have Hitler constantly looking over my shoulder and interfering. As a soviet player I don't want to stick my head into the encirclement noose constantly. I think the game gives us those options.

[kg_1007]

BOFH.. If this was facebook, I would 'like' that posting.

[misesfan]

If the Germans capture Leningrad and Moscow, would that be a win? Not in this game, since the ability of Soviet formations to operate, bereft of a functioning capital, will eventually overcome the Germans. To me this is ludicrous, given that the loss of both of these major objectives to the Germans would have caused massive logistical and morale issues that are not modeled within the game. But given that these did not happen historically, the designers have done what they get paid for and made a design decision that the morale and supply effects wouldnt have caused the collapse of the Red Army. I may disagree, but its their design.

I find it quite humorous however that there are people posting who are stating that the mathematically pre-ordained result, even before the game has started, is Soviet occupation of Berlin. Its just a matter of time on when it occurs. They are reinforced within these forums by others with the same viewpoint and by the game results. Why play the game then? There isnt any competition and Germans who attempt to point out some issues are quickly shouted down in the forums or given links to texts by Glantz, et al describing historical outcomes.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: pwieland
...
I may disagree, but its their design.
...
Why play the game then?
...

Well, question 2 is almost trivial to answer, and it has been done so by many before: Because for some playing isn't about winning in first place, but the journey there. Both for two players who want to enjoy playing each other, as well for those who pick to duel the AI. Anyone may disagree, but I would place a bet that the majority of the players of such monster games do so. Would be an interesting poll?

That Barbarossa was a forgone conclusion is most likely. Most likely means there are of course many chances that it may have ended slightly or largely different, but I wouldn't think they are meaningful in size. Which is what the game shows if you look at "victory" not in the sense of the "VP conditions". It is not a static recreation of history, you can use hindsight, or try alternatives, but within limits.

Whether the Russians would have had a morale loss on the fall of Moscow, whether this morale dip would have lasted or how long, who knows. Hard to say, it could also have simply strengthened their will to fight. Pure speculation, but ask Napoleon what he thought of the lesson he got.

ORIGINAL: kg_1007
BOFH.. If this was facebook, I would 'like' that posting.

Yeah, I thought so a few times earlier. Would be nice if every logged-in user could "like" or "dislike" posts with a simple button.

[76mm]

What you are saying I interpret as: neither side is forced to make the same errors as were made historically. I'm all for.
In the same breath you mention that Germany can't win because they didn't win historically. Hmmm, you notice the contradiction?

I really don't see a contradiction at all...I can't speak for others, but I'm not saying that Germany can't win because they didn't win historically, I'm saying that it is pretty implausible that they COULD have won historically, so they shouldn't be expected to win the war in this game either. They gambled everything on faulty assumptions about the length of the campaign, the quantity and quality of Sov forces that they were facing, and the Sov's will to resist; since their assumptions were false, they were pretty much doomed once they invaded Russia.

Not in this game, since the ability of Soviet formations to operate, bereft of a functioning capital, will eventually overcome the Germans. To me this is ludicrous, given that the loss of both of these major objectives to the Germans would have caused massive logistical and morale issues that are not modeled within the game. But given that these did not happen historically, the designers have done what they get paid for and made a design decision that the morale and supply effects wouldnt have caused the collapse of the Red Army.

Not sure why you think the lack of a "functioning capital" means that the Sovs would have collapsed? What exact benefits would the Sovs derive from the buildings in Moscow? While I generally agree that the loss of Moscow should have more effect than it does in the game (mainly because of its role as a logistical hub, etc.), I think it is "ludicrous" to suggest that the Sovs could not have beaten the Germans for the sole reason that Moscow fell.

If Moscow was so important, why did the Germans divert forces from their drive on Moscow to other fronts? Hmmm...I guess they didn't think that taking Moscow would win the war for them, so I'm not sure why you draw that conclusion.

[76mm]

I find it quite humorous however that there are people posting who are stating that the mathematically pre-ordained result, even before the game has started, is Soviet occupation of Berlin. Its just a matter of time on when it occurs. They are reinforced within these forums by others with the same viewpoint and by the game results. Why play the game then? There isnt any competition and Germans who attempt to point out some issues are quickly shouted down in the forums or given links to texts by Glantz, et al describing historical outcomes.

I find it humorous that so many pro-German posters claim that they are being "shouted down" by having to deal with inconvenient facts and credible historical sources.

As to why to play the game, you can ask all of the people who play the Japanese side in WitP. Or you can find a game that allows Germany to take Vladivostok, India, and then set up Nazi bases on the moon if that would be more to your liking.

[76mm]

kg, with all due respect, I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from playing vs the AI for a few reasons:

1) the devs have already said that the AI does a better job as the Sov side, so you should not expect the German AI to give as much of a challenge. The devs have also suggested that when playing vs the German AI, you should play on challenging or some other difficulty level higher than "normal". While I guess the usual suspects will claim that this is yet more evidence of some pro-Sov bias, I suspect that the real reason is that it is simply more difficult to play as the German side and the AI is not up to the job.

2) The AI is much more forgiving of a forward defense, because it is not as good/aggressive about encircling Sov troops as a good human player. The problem with a forward defense against talented humans is that it can lead to numerous and massive encirclements which make it very difficult to form an effective defense later on. Don't ask me how I know...

I've played two games vs the German AI and was really disappointed by its poor defensive performance after the blizzard, it just falls apart. My second game was on the challenging setting and the AI gave a very good performance through the blizzard, getting to the gates of Moscow and Lgrad, and then avoiding disaster during the blizzard.

To be good as the Germans, as far as I understand you really have to know some techniques to get the maximum bang out of the German army, there are lots of threads on the topic.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: pwieland

If the Germans capture Leningrad and Moscow, would that be a win? Not in this game, since the ability of Soviet formations to operate, bereft of a functioning capital,

The Russians did have a functioning capital. Kuybyshev (Samara since 1991.). In October 1941, the Communist Party and governmental organizations, diplomatic missions of foreign countries, leading cultural establishments and their staff were evacuated to the city. It would of been the capital if Moscow fell. It remained the alternate capital until summer 1943.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

If Moscow was so important, why did the Germans divert forces from their drive on Moscow to other fronts? Hmmm...I guess they didn't think that taking Moscow would win the war for them, so I'm not sure why you draw that conclusion.

Moscow wasn't even on the radar as far as planning went. Not until the failure to destroy the Red Army and cause the regime to collapse.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: glvaca

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: 76mm



Well it is hard to disagree when it is completely unclear what we are talking about--both what is a runaway and what it means to defeat it?

I would think that giving up all that territory would make it difficult to take Berlin in time to win as Sov, but I doubt that enough games have reached that stage to draw any firm conclusions.

This "runaway", aka trading space for time doesn't win. How do I know that? Because I did it in three games. And I lost in three games.

I would say that it baffles me why some Axis players want to force Stalin's political decision to fight on Russian players. Especially as way back in 2010 it was stated that A: Political decisions are not in the game. (something that one would think would make Axis players happy. Laying seige to Leningrad instead fo taking it was a political decision after all.) And B: The players would not be forced to replicate Hitler's/Stalin's blunders. (Another thing that one would think would make Axis players happy.)

But it doesn't baffle me.

And it doesn't make Soviet players happy?
Perhaps you should try to at least "sound" impartial?
What you are saying I interpret as: neither side is forced to make the same errors as were made historically. I'm all for.
In the same breath you mention that Germany can't win because they didn't win historically. Hmmm, you notice the contradiction?

Where did I say that. I said *I* have never won using the runaway strategy. Pro Axis players cry/pout/pick up their marbles and go home/insult because every time they suggest putting Stalin rules in I say then Hitler rules should be added in too. They do the same thing when they want control over their TOE, yet deny it to the Russian player.

It isn't Soviet players accussing the forum/2by3 of bias afterall.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

I would say that it baffles me why some Axis players want to force Stalin's political decision to fight on Russian players. Especially as way back in 2010 it was stated that A: Political decisions are not in the game. (something that one would think would make Axis players happy. Laying seige to Leningrad instead fo taking it was a political decision after all.) And B: The players would not be forced to replicate Hitler's/Stalin's blunders. (Another thing that one would think would make Axis players happy.)

But it doesn't baffle me.

Some "Soviet" players would like to have more pressure to fight forward. Not necessarily be forced, but to have some imperative to fight forward.

It baffles me that you would want to see warfare completely disconnected from its political side. War is politics by other means. Politcs doesn't end at the moment war starts so that generals can do whatever they want.

But I seem to recall that we have had this discussion before...

[Pipewrench]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I find it quite humorous however that there are people posting who are stating that the mathematically pre-ordained result, even before the game has started, is Soviet occupation of Berlin. Its just a matter of time on when it occurs. They are reinforced within these forums by others with the same viewpoint and by the game results. Why play the game then? There isnt any competition and Germans who attempt to point out some issues are quickly shouted down in the forums or given links to texts by Glantz, et al describing historical outcomes.

I find it humorous that so many pro-German posters claim that they are being "shouted down" by having to deal with inconvenient facts and credible historical sources.

As to why to play the game, you can ask all of the people who play the Japanese side in WitP. Or you can find a game that allows Germany to take Vladivostok, India, and then set up Nazi bases on the moon if that would be more to your liking.

[:)]
The reason people play Japan is due to the fact that with sea battles and air power, results can have a dramatic effect on timetables. Each island or region is a campaign in itself and have a flow about them.

War in the East is a hex grab against a clock with no surprises. The German is fixed to timetables and production schedules to keep a close historic advance. This advance is limited in options and must be almost perfect in execution. When attrition finally takes effect the same can be said for the Russian play as it is just a numbers crunch with a foregone conclusion.

What should of been done is to create objectives within the grand campaign that keep the interest flowing whether winning or losing. The computer crunches the numbers and compares with the date. It now demands placement objective markers that you must reach to receive before the next objective request. You can select a broad front to take the required number of hexes or just place markers to plan a regional thrust that takes up the hexes asked for. The defending player does the same thing. Results are shown at the end of each year.

The game is good but it has to hold interest. Playing a losing battle would be more entertaining if you could get a tactical credit every now and then.

Regards....

[Farfarer61]

Give the Axis 100 percent control of production as in 12 O Clock High/BTR and THEN you'll have a 'situation'.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

I would say that it baffles me why some Axis players want to force Stalin's political decision to fight on Russian players. Especially as way back in 2010 it was stated that A: Political decisions are not in the game. (something that one would think would make Axis players happy. Laying seige to Leningrad instead fo taking it was a political decision after all.) And B: The players would not be forced to replicate Hitler's/Stalin's blunders. (Another thing that one would think would make Axis players happy.)

But it doesn't baffle me.

Some "Soviet" players would like to have more pressure to fight forward. Not necessarily be forced, but to have some imperative to fight forward.

It baffles me that you would want to see warfare completely disconnected from its political side. War is politics by other means. Politcs doesn't end at the moment war starts so that generals can do whatever they want.

But I seem to recall that we have had this discussion before...

There is nothing to stop a Soviet player from fighting forward, sideways, (that would be a neat trick.), or back.

As for politics, back in 2010, it was stated that the players would not be saddled with the mistakes of the big cheeses. It is fortunate for both sides that the politics are out of it. Just how much bile will be spewed at 2by3 when the rule is that "due to Hitler's political decision, Leningrad is off limits." Or, "Due to the decision of your political master, the 1942 offensive must take the oilfields." Or if it get that far "Due to Hitler's decision to keep the Hungarian resources, the 6th Panzer Army is going there." I think the player would be a better judge of where he could use said army.

Or how about if Guderian gets dismissed, you lost him for the game as he angered Hitler.

I could come up with ones for the Soviets too. But there really is no need to.

One other thing to consider. This isn't a political-socio-economic-diplomatic-wargame. There are games that let you make those kind of decisions. Hearts of Iron/EU/CK comes to mind. This is just a war game.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: pipewrench

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I find it quite humorous however that there are people posting who are stating that the mathematically pre-ordained result, even before the game has started, is Soviet occupation of Berlin. Its just a matter of time on when it occurs. They are reinforced within these forums by others with the same viewpoint and by the game results. Why play the game then? There isnt any competition and Germans who attempt to point out some issues are quickly shouted down in the forums or given links to texts by Glantz, et al describing historical outcomes.

I find it humorous that so many pro-German posters claim that they are being "shouted down" by having to deal with inconvenient facts and credible historical sources.

As to why to play the game, you can ask all of the people who play the Japanese side in WitP. Or you can find a game that allows Germany to take Vladivostok, India, and then set up Nazi bases on the moon if that would be more to your liking.

[:)]
The reason people play Japan is due to the fact that with sea battles and air power, results can have a dramatic effect on timetables. Each island or region is a campaign in itself and have a flow about them.

War in the East is a hex grab against a clock with no surprises. The German is fixed to timetables and production schedules to keep a close historic advance. This advance is limited in options and must be almost perfect in execution. When attrition finally takes effect the same can be said for the Russian play as it is just a numbers crunch with a foregone conclusion.

What should of been done is to create objectives within the grand campaign that keep the interest flowing whether winning or losing. The computer crunches the numbers and compares with the date. It now demands placement objective markers that you must reach to receive before the next objective request. You can select a broad front to take the required number of hexes or just place markers to plan a regional thrust that takes up the hexes asked for. The defending player does the same thing. Results are shown at the end of each year.

The game is good but it has to hold interest. Playing a losing battle would be more entertaining if you could get a tactical credit every now and then.

Regards....

Outstanding!

One feature of AE that I have been bringing up here for months (years? already?) is the AV problem for the Allies. The Allies cannot lose the game so the ultimate Sir Robin strategy is for the Allies to fall back to Festung Amerika and wait far a gazillion carriers, planes, troops, etc to arrive. EXCEPT the Japanese can win the game outright if the Allies do not hold sufficient points for territorial objectives (mostly) at certain dates. This is admittedly just one of several factors that keeps the game interesting for both sides, but it is a siginficant one for me since I once suddenly LOST as the ALLIES (the shame of it all!) due to giving up too much territory.

To me the Wrench's idea would work wonders for the WitE midgame (42-43).

[Pipewrench]

thanks pompack for the feedback,

The two games are a different dynamic and should be treated as such.


To elaborate and remember this is just off the top of my head....

create a system where every tactical cycle (once a month) you and your opponent select a set amount of hexes in front of your lines that are worth points. The points are weighed against your current strength vs your opponents.If you are weaker the hexes are worth more to you and less to him. With the original front line counted at the end of they cycle a tactical winner can be compared. Every cycle begins level due to the fact that total strengths are compared at that timeline and hexes picked are weighed accordingly. Hexes picked by each side will always be the same amount and weights will be hidden. Rain pushes the cycle up 1 week and blizzard increases points held by Germany and subtracts from the soviet side respectively . Keep this all separate from the original points system and only declare a winner (minor,major victory/defeat).

Just a rant but it would create games within the grand campaign and help those that are losing to fight hard to defend ground in the hopes of winning tactically each month while still losing the war.

Regards,

[misesfan]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Not sure why you think the lack of a "functioning capital" means that the Sovs would have collapsed? What exact benefits would the Sovs derive from the buildings in Moscow? While I generally agree that the loss of Moscow should have more effect than it does in the game (mainly because of its role as a logistical hub, etc.), I think it is "ludicrous" to suggest that the Sovs could not have beaten the Germans for the sole reason that Moscow fell.

If Moscow was so important, why did the Germans divert forces from their drive on Moscow to other fronts? Hmmm...I guess they didn't think that taking Moscow would win the war for them, so I'm not sure why you draw that conclusion.

You do understand that your logic is suspect just based on the premise and conclusion, right? That is, the Germans lost the war, but given that they diverted resources to other fronts that should prove that they were correct on not focusing on Moscow.

If they would have focused on taking Moscow instead of frittering away resources, no one can say. But since historically, they did NOT do that, and they lost the war, perhaps it may be a better strategy to focus on taking the capital. The designers of the game make a statement on this within the game. Again, I may not agree with their decision but making those choices is one of the things they get paid to do.

[misesfan]

janh

Well, question 2 is almost trivial to answer, and it has been done so by many before: Because for some playing isn't about winning in first place, but the journey there. Both for two players who want to enjoy playing each other, as well for those who pick to duel the AI. Anyone may disagree, but I would place a bet that the majority of the players of such monster games do so. Would be an interesting poll?

That Barbarossa was a forgone conclusion is most likely. Most likely means there are of course many chances that it may have ended slightly or largely different, but I wouldn't think they are meaningful in size. Which is what the game shows if you look at "victory" not in the sense of the "VP conditions". It is not a static recreation of history, you can use hindsight, or try alternatives, but within limits.

Whether the Russians would have had a morale loss on the fall of Moscow, whether this morale dip would have lasted or how long, who knows. Hard to say, it could also have simply strengthened their will to fight. Pure speculation, but ask Napoleon what he thought of the lesson he got.

You enjoy the simulation aspect of the game and not the competitive aspect. Your preference and that's cool. I do as well - I actually like the game in its own right for some of the simulation aspects as well.

However, I am responding to those who state that the campaign was a foregone conclusion and the design reinforces this and thus is correct. There are many aspects of the design that are historically nonsensical, but are still active. Removing units wholesale from the Axis OOB because of historical battles, that may never occur? (I am thinking the Stalingrad OOB removal as a prime example here...) How about the artificial lowering of German morale? How about the artificial raising of Soviet morale? I could go further but I am certain you got the gist...