A question about current state of balance and tactic

[misesfan]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

I see he is falling for helio's Stalingrad myth. I see he fails to understand, either on purpose or because of lack of research, that those units lost at Stalingrad were *rebuilt*. And that they were sent *west*. Thus, said units are withdrawn. Not because they were lost. But because they went west.

He really should read what Joel posts.

I have read those posts. In fact there is a new post regarding the Western Front reinforcement schedule. I have also read Helio's posts as well. Glad you have presumed what I have been thinking.

Mr. Billings states that the withdrawn units are to reinforce the Western Front. I presumed that they were removed because of the destruction of the Sixth Army - since those are the units removed from play and at he same time they were historically removed from the OOB. I guess my assumptions were totally irrational according to you.

I was incorrect and defer to the designer regarding this issue.

[misesfan]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: pwieland

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Uh, actually, I've said previously and fairly frequently that the Sov's ability to conduct this kind of coordinated withdrawal is "wildly unrealistic" and have suggested some ways to fix it. I'm too lazy to post a link the to post, but trust me on this one.

I am sure you have. The point being is that you accused those who disagree and feel as if they are shouted down within the forum are presented with historical fact and pristine logic. I have presented two instances within the same thread where that is not the case. Therefore, the premise is demonstrably false.

You failed with the Stalingrad nonsense. The units are not withdrawn because they were lost. They are withdrawn because the rebuilt units were.............wait for it.........................................sent elsewhere.

Read Joel's post here: tm.asp?m=3097828&mpage=5&key=?

tm.asp?m=3104200 for Trey's

Heh - umm wait for it? Okay.

My demonstration of your faulty logic was in reference to the fact that you stated that the Germans (who actually LOST the war) did not have the Soviet capital as a prime objective and therefore should be the correct strategy for players. Your quote

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.

My demonstration of your talking down to others with ahistorical BS regarding the following quote from you:

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.

And yet I didnt mention Stalingrad at all. We were discussing the occupation of Leningrad and Moscow. My discussion of Stalingrad, which I admit is incorrect based on the designers comments, was in an itemized listing of ahistorical factors in the game that needed attention.

You corrected my discussion on the Stalingrad withdrawls, and yet dont discuss the lowering of German morale which is much more critical, but was listed by me in the same sentence. Of course, discussion about wholesale retrograde Soviet operations is quite off the table as well.

[76mm]

pwieland, you seem to be mixing up who said what...you seem to be quoting me and responding to Aurelian?

In any event, I understand that your argument is as follows:
1) It is ludicrous that the Sovs could have beaten Germany if Moscow had been lost;
2) The Germans, who had staked the fate of the country on the issue, decided that they would pursue objectives other than Moscow; and
3) The Germans lost the war, thus proving your claim that taking Moscow would have won the war.

Do I have that about right? Are you sure that it is my logic that is faulty?

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: pwieland


And yet I didnt mention Stalingrad at all. We were discussing the occupation of Leningrad and Moscow. My discussion of Stalingrad, which I admit is incorrect based on the designers comments, was in an itemized listing of ahistorical factors in the game that needed attention.

ORIGINAL: pwieland

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...)

So much for not mentioning Stalingrad at all.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

pwieland, you seem to be mixing up who said what...you seem to be quoting me and responding to Aurelian?

In any event, I understand that your argument is as follows:
1) It is ludicrous that the Sovs could have beaten Germany if Moscow had been lost;
2) The Germans, who had staked the fate of the country on the issue, decided that they would pursue objectives other than Moscow; and
3) The Germans lost the war, thus proving your claim that taking Moscow would have won the war.

Do I have that about right? Are you sure that it is my logic that is faulty?

I'm still waiting for him to show that Russia would not have had a functioning capital if Moscow fell.

[Panzeh]

The thing about the whole "What if Guderian had focused on Moscow" is that there's no consequence to the counterpoint. The Soviet army has nerf guns in 1941 so 600,000 men in Kiev are no real threat to anything and just looking to get encircled. In reality, a push on Moscow with a massive force on its southern flank might have resulted in total disaster if a counterattack managed to break through behind him, and the Soviets were counterattacking.

Of course, in WitE, soviet units are so bad in combat in 1941 that counterattacks are nothing, and it's mostly a campaign of maneuver rather than of fierce battle. I think the Soviets should get some combat help in 1941 while getting a lot less help in the blizzard. The "Blizzard" should come because the Axis is worn down, not because of some lame gamey benefit.

[Tarhunnas]

The Soviets can counterattack effectively in 1941, especially if the Axis player cannot constantly keep the Soviet off guard.
 
But I agree with you point about the blizzard, I guess it is overpowered to compensate for a lack of realistic logistics. Logistics should be much more of a limiting factor to offensives than it is, both to the Germans in 1941 and 1942 and the Soviets in later years.
 
 

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

The Soviets can counterattack effectively in 1941, especially if the Axis player cannot constantly keep the Soviet off guard.

Two things:

I've seen your attacks, and don't know how you do it. Mine fail miserably, almost without exception. That's besides the fact that massing units for an attack is very likely to cause them to get bagged next turn.

Even your attacks amount to forcing a division or two back; while is great for slowing the Germans down, I don't know if I would call it an "effective counter-attack" in the sense that Panzeh meant.

In any event, I think it is kind of a stretch to say that the Sovs can counterattack effectively.

[hfarrish]

My experience is that the reality is somewhere in between - its true you have little chance of doing more than throwing back a German unit here or there (as opposed to some kind of more coordinated counter offensive) unless the German player totally ignores his flanks. On the other hand, it is possible to make the one offs count, whether in reopening pockets or particularly in pushing a unit that crossed a major river back over; this often can set the Germans back an entire turn.

The risk of pockets is a big one so prudence is key...yet another limiting factor on trying to do anything more than little stuff here or there.

[Michael T]

Arhh the memories.

Some newcomers might be interested in this thread. It contains *interesting* discussions about the runaway strategy amongst other things. There are other old threads that also discuss the same subject ad nauseam, but this is one of the most *entertaining*

Food for thought for the guys who have asked me about this aspect of WITE/WITE 2.0

[Telemecus]

So I guess there was never a time when there were no discussions about game balance! [:D]

[joelmar]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

It contains *interesting* discussions about the runaway strategy amongst other things

Interesting for sure. I read quite a few comments and it seems there is nothing new under the sun!

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

So I guess there was never a time when there were no discussions about game balance!

lol! What is game balance exactly? Ok, let me get some pop-corn!

[Wheat]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Arhh the memories.

Some newcomers might be interested in this thread. It contains *interesting* discussions about the runaway strategy amongst other things. There are other old threads that also discuss the same subject ad nauseam, but this is one of the most *entertaining*

Food for thought for the guys who have asked me about this aspect of WITE/WITE 2.0

Good to see you posting again Michael T.

And it's a soldiers prerogative to complain.

[Michael T]

What else do Grognards do other than complain?

[corbon]

Well, grognard does literally mean grumbler in French - its origin in military terms is Napoleon using it for his Old Guard veterans in 1804.

[Beria]

It certainly relieves the stress and tension to have a good old moan and whine afterwards I think! [:D]