Tackling the Russian bear (No Tarhunnas pls)

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: glvaca

That's actually not completely true. The latest patches have 1.06+ have shifted back towards stiffening the Soviets.

I'm not sure who came up with the idea that the Axis logistics are so incredibly forgiving. There were plenty of times when I had to pause for supplies and refit because the panzers were getting worn out. Logistics and securing the RR which I was planning to convert were prime considerations in all my planning. IF you (and many others) want to delude themselves by thinking that the Axis can just run around without a secoind thought about their logistics, I think it's time you fire up a game as the Axis and put that to the test. We'll talk again after that.

It is real easy to come up with the idea that Axis logistics are so incredibly forgiving, because compared to the historical campaign they are I am not talking about just gas, but other stuff like ammo, etc that the Germans ran into repeated issues with that do not seem to be replicated in the game. The Russians do not have the same issues in game they did historically either, so it is a issue for both sides.

I never said that the Axis can just run around without a second thought about the logistics, so you can put that back in your pocket, but for you to deny this game has a issue with too generous logistics across the board means you are likely deluded as well. Perhaps you should fire up a later game as the Germans and watch the Russians never pause or only pause for the briefest of moments while pounding away mostly oblivious to the historical logistics issues they had.

If you think my post was a personal attack on you or the campaign with Tarhunnas, it wasn't. You played a fine game and deserved to win. Tarhunnas is likely to go back to the drawing board and adjust his tactics given the current condition of the game.

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

ORIGINAL: glvaca

That's actually not completely true. The latest patches have 1.06+ have shifted back towards stiffening the Soviets.

I'm not sure who came up with the idea that the Axis logistics are so incredibly forgiving. There were plenty of times when I had to pause for supplies and refit because the panzers were getting worn out. Logistics and securing the RR which I was planning to convert were prime considerations in all my planning. IF you (and many others) want to delude themselves by thinking that the Axis can just run around without a secoind thought about their logistics, I think it's time you fire up a game as the Axis and put that to the test. We'll talk again after that.

It is real easy to come up with the idea that Axis logistics are so incredibly forgiving, because compared to the historical campaign they are I am not talking about just gas, but other stuff like ammo, etc that the Germans ran into repeated issues with that do not seem to be replicated in the game. The Russians do not have the same issues in game they did historically either, so it is a issue for both sides.

I never said that the Axis can just run around without a second thought about the logistics, so you can put that back in your pocket, but for you to deny this game has a issue with too generous logistics across the board means you are likely deluded as well. Perhaps you should fire up a later game as the Germans and watch the Russians never pause or only pause for the briefest of moments while pounding away mostly oblivious to the historical logistics issues they had.

If you think my post was a personal attack on you or the campaign with Tarhunnas, it wasn't. You played a fine game and deserved to win. Tarhunnas is likely to go back to the drawing board and adjust his tactics given the current condition of the game.

Boaf, that is your opinion, and I dare say of the powerfull Russian Fanboy lobby at this forum, don't try to pass it of as historically correct.
This is an operational level game. Don't expect every historical tactical problem to be replicated.
Besides, the historical campaign went as it went. Are we here to be stuck which each mistake made historically even if we take steps to avoid it?
Many people here seem stuck in a loop, this or that shouldn't be possible as it didn't occur historically. Bla blabla.
Get over it, we're not here to repeat the historical mistakes, we'll make brand new ones ourselves. That's the fun of playing.

Just a well know example. The Smolensk operation:
1. Guderian made a huge error in pushing so deep without infantry support.
2. This led to serious attrition on the Panzers.
3. Which in turn led to several weeks of rehabilitation (they didn't get completely).
4. delays while bickering with Hitler to move South and pocket the Kiev forces.
5. Etc...

IF I _don't_ repeat that mistake, why should I bare the consequences?

It IS quite possible to perform better than historical as the Axis, just as you can as the Soviets. What's the problem? Logistics? Right! [:D]

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: glvaca
Boaf, that is your opinion, and I dare say of the powerfull Russian Fanboy lobby at this forum, don't try to pass it of as historically correct.
This is an operational level game. Don't expect every historical tactical problem to be replicated.
Besides, the historical campaign went as it went. Are we here to be stuck which each mistake made historically even if we take steps to avoid it?
***
Many people here seem stuck in a loop, this or that shouldn't be possible as it didn't occur historically. Bla blabla.
Get over it, we're not here to repeat the historical mistakes

It sounds like you are suggesting that if not for their "mistakes" the Germans would have been able to ignore all logistical constraints on their operations, or rather, that there would not have been any logistical constraints?

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: glvaca
Boaf, that is your opinion, and I dare say of the powerfull Russian Fanboy lobby at this forum, don't try to pass it of as historically correct.
This is an operational level game. Don't expect every historical tactical problem to be replicated.
Besides, the historical campaign went as it went. Are we here to be stuck which each mistake made historically even if we take steps to avoid it?
***
Many people here seem stuck in a loop, this or that shouldn't be possible as it didn't occur historically. Bla blabla.
Get over it, we're not here to repeat the historical mistakes

It sounds like you are suggesting that if not for their "mistakes" the Germans would have been able to ignore all logistical constraints on their operations, or rather, that there would not have been any logistical constraints?

Common 76, let's be serious. I said nothing of the sort.

[Flaviusx]

Yes, as Klydon says, when the Sovs are on the offensive the same lack of logistical constraints allows them to keep going on and on like the energizer bunny -- again, only being stopped by the weather. There is no months long pause in the Vistula in August 1944, etc.

It's really a problem in general. Whoever is on the offense benefits.

[glvaca]

Unfortunately, I haven't played in 1944 so it's difficult to comment on.
However, what I've seen from AAR's that do get so far is that an Operation Bagration like scenario is unlikely because few Axis players will repeat the idiocracy of Hitler's the stand fast orders and will prepare multiple defensive lines to fall back too when needed.

What I do know is that falling back far enough as the Soviet in 1941 _will_ cause supply issues. More notably fuel, but also supplies, which can lead to loss of moral, and I take that seriously.

Secondly, while you may have enough supplies, replacements are just not going to get to your far forward troops. With the attrition level the panzers are subjected too that is a serious issue. Do not underestimate it.

The same happens in Blizzard for the Soviets. Even IF, and it's a big if, logistics are too generous, without replacements you're not going to cut it as the Axis. A CV 6 Pz. Div is not going to make a push to Stalingrad if you get my meaning.

This is an operational level 1 week game. Things need to be tailored to that. IIRC, at least 4-5 weeks were spent refitting out of 17 clear turns, isn't that enough?

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: glvaca

ORIGINAL: Klydon

ORIGINAL: glvaca

That's actually not completely true. The latest patches have 1.06+ have shifted back towards stiffening the Soviets.

I'm not sure who came up with the idea that the Axis logistics are so incredibly forgiving. There were plenty of times when I had to pause for supplies and refit because the panzers were getting worn out. Logistics and securing the RR which I was planning to convert were prime considerations in all my planning. IF you (and many others) want to delude themselves by thinking that the Axis can just run around without a secoind thought about their logistics, I think it's time you fire up a game as the Axis and put that to the test. We'll talk again after that.

It is real easy to come up with the idea that Axis logistics are so incredibly forgiving, because compared to the historical campaign they are I am not talking about just gas, but other stuff like ammo, etc that the Germans ran into repeated issues with that do not seem to be replicated in the game. The Russians do not have the same issues in game they did historically either, so it is a issue for both sides.

I never said that the Axis can just run around without a second thought about the logistics, so you can put that back in your pocket, but for you to deny this game has a issue with too generous logistics across the board means you are likely deluded as well. Perhaps you should fire up a later game as the Germans and watch the Russians never pause or only pause for the briefest of moments while pounding away mostly oblivious to the historical logistics issues they had.

If you think my post was a personal attack on you or the campaign with Tarhunnas, it wasn't. You played a fine game and deserved to win. Tarhunnas is likely to go back to the drawing board and adjust his tactics given the current condition of the game.

Boaf, that is your opinion, and I dare say of the powerfull Russian Fanboy lobby at this forum, don't try to pass it of as historically correct.
This is an operational level game. Don't expect every historical tactical problem to be replicated.
Besides, the historical campaign went as it went. Are we here to be stuck which each mistake made historically even if we take steps to avoid it?
Many people here seem stuck in a loop, this or that shouldn't be possible as it didn't occur historically. Bla blabla.
Get over it, we're not here to repeat the historical mistakes, we'll make brand new ones ourselves. That's the fun of playing.

Just a well know example. The Smolensk operation:
1. Guderian made a huge error in pushing so deep without infantry support.
2. This led to serious attrition on the Panzers.
3. Which in turn led to several weeks of rehabilitation (they didn't get completely).
4. delays while bickering with Hitler to move South and pocket the Kiev forces.
5. Etc...

IF I _don't_ repeat that mistake, why should I bare the consequences?

It IS quite possible to perform better than historical as the Axis, just as you can as the Soviets. What's the problem? Logistics? Right! [:D]

ROFLMA! I have to admit this is the first time I have been called a Russian fan boy.

News flash bud. I don't think the "Russian Fanboy lobby" would let me in the door as critical as I have been on game balance with most of my opinions directed at the Russians.

I am not a fanboy of either side, but rather someone who would like to see this game improve and overcome some of the serious issues it currently has between two players. Frankly, I am tired of the track meet feel for what should be a clash of titans.

I have played both sides repeatedly, so I am well aware of the issues each side has and any reasonable person that is not a hopeless cheerleader for their given side absolutely understands the supply/logistics model in this game is a contributing factor to a lot of the issues going on with the game.

[Flaviusx]

The thing that keeps the Soviets on a leash during the blizzard to some extent are unreadiness issues. Their morale is so low and the Red Army so brittle that they cannot be pushed too far. (The same low morale also impedes their mobility in general even for those units that aren't unready, flipping over enemy terrain is expensive with super low morale.)

But from 1943 on, that brittleness goes away as NM norms go up. At 60ish or so morale unreadiness basically disappears as a problem. That doesn't seem like it would make such a big difference from the mid 40ish morale of 1941-2, but it's huge. At that point the lack of a logistcal leash on the Big Red Machine becomes fairly apparent.

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

ORIGINAL: glvaca

ORIGINAL: Klydon



It is real easy to come up with the idea that Axis logistics are so incredibly forgiving, because compared to the historical campaign they are I am not talking about just gas, but other stuff like ammo, etc that the Germans ran into repeated issues with that do not seem to be replicated in the game. The Russians do not have the same issues in game they did historically either, so it is a issue for both sides.

I never said that the Axis can just run around without a second thought about the logistics, so you can put that back in your pocket, but for you to deny this game has a issue with too generous logistics across the board means you are likely deluded as well. Perhaps you should fire up a later game as the Germans and watch the Russians never pause or only pause for the briefest of moments while pounding away mostly oblivious to the historical logistics issues they had.

If you think my post was a personal attack on you or the campaign with Tarhunnas, it wasn't. You played a fine game and deserved to win. Tarhunnas is likely to go back to the drawing board and adjust his tactics given the current condition of the game.

Boaf, that is your opinion, and I dare say of the powerfull Russian Fanboy lobby at this forum, don't try to pass it of as historically correct.
This is an operational level game. Don't expect every historical tactical problem to be replicated.
Besides, the historical campaign went as it went. Are we here to be stuck which each mistake made historically even if we take steps to avoid it?
Many people here seem stuck in a loop, this or that shouldn't be possible as it didn't occur historically. Bla blabla.
Get over it, we're not here to repeat the historical mistakes, we'll make brand new ones ourselves. That's the fun of playing.

Just a well know example. The Smolensk operation:
1. Guderian made a huge error in pushing so deep without infantry support.
2. This led to serious attrition on the Panzers.
3. Which in turn led to several weeks of rehabilitation (they didn't get completely).
4. delays while bickering with Hitler to move South and pocket the Kiev forces.
5. Etc...

IF I _don't_ repeat that mistake, why should I bare the consequences?

It IS quite possible to perform better than historical as the Axis, just as you can as the Soviets. What's the problem? Logistics? Right! [:D]

ROFLMA! I have to admit this is the first time I have been called a Russian fan boy.

News flash bud. I don't think the "Russian Fanboy lobby" would let me in the door as critical as I have been on game balance with most of my opinions directed at the Russians.

I am not a fanboy of either side, but rather someone who would like to see this game improve and overcome some of the serious issues it currently has between two players. Frankly, I am tired of the track meet feel for what should be a clash of titans.

I have played both sides repeatedly, so I am well aware of the issues each side has and any reasonable person that is not a hopeless cheerleader for their given side absolutely understands the supply/logistics model in this game is a contributing factor to a lot of the issues going on with the game.

Boaf again, you're entitled to your opinion, whether you belong to the Soviet lobby or not.
Again, I have seen the panzers movement schrink substantially when well ahead of their supply lines as is clearly documented in this AAR. Again, supply lines and RR conversion have been a major consideration in my planning.
My point? If I take care do try and do everything right, am I not intittled to expect reasonable supply and mobility? Must each and every time someone does it right, everything be brushed over as to easy logistics?
Mind, I only used 3 HQ buildups. And I regret not doing 4. And I did not, nor have I ever used mulling.

there are many area's of improvement possible for this game, I just don't think logistics is the biggest problem, at all.

[glvaca]

)

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The thing that keeps the Soviets on a leash during the blizzard to some extent are unreadiness issues. Their morale is so low and the Red Army so brittle that they cannot be pushed too far. (The same low morale also impedes their mobility in general even for those units that aren't unready, flipping over enemy terrain is expensive with super low morale.)

But from 1943 on, that brittleness goes away as NM norms go up. At 60ish or so morale unreadiness basically disappears as a problem. That doesn't seem like it would make such a big difference from the mid 40ish morale of 1941-2, but it's huge. At that point the lack of a logistcal leash on the Big Red Machine becomes fairly apparent.

Hmmm, I understand what you're saying which is exactly why I think the Russian player must play conservative in 1941, getting as many units up to 50 morale as possible. In the one blizzard I've played, unready was never a big issue because op that.

But back to logistics, I've never seen advances by the red army in Axis 1941 fashion. Should you ever be able to do advances like that (and fail to have enough RR birgades [;)] ) you will notice what I'm talking about.
Additionally, the Axis player can only make a serious difference by making deep pockets. To do so, he needs 2 things, fuel and enough strength to push through and create the pocket. This is a very high level abstraction).
this is not the style of the Red Amry 1944 so you'll hardly ever run into the same issues as the Axis in 1941.

Seriously, start up a game as the Axis, you'll get a whole new insight in the problems it faces.

[Flaviusx]

Well, the Wehrmacht is too strong until almost the very end in 41 GCs for big leaps forward. You can see such leaps playing a 43 or 44 campaign.

But even in a 1941 GC you do reach a point where Soviet offensive operation simply do not stop for anything except mud. The Red Army batters away each and every non mud turn, and grinds the Germans to powder. If the Germans have succeeded in pushing the Red Army back far enough they can run out the clock and get a either a minor victory or a draw, but if not, the endless hammer blows will do them in. Operational pauses simply do not exist except for those forced by mud. This really isn't the way it should be.

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Well, the Wehrmacht is too strong until almost the very end in 41 GCs for big leaps forward. You can see such leaps playing a 43 or 44 campaign.

But even in a 1941 GC you do reach a point where Soviet offensive operation simply do not stop for anything except mud. The Red Army batters away each and every non mud turn, and grinds the Germans to powder. If the Germans have succeeded in pushing the Red Army back far enough they can run out the clock and get a either a minor victory or a draw, but if not, the endless hammer blows will do them in. Operational pauses simply do not exist except for those forced by mud. This really isn't the way it should be.

I'm not sure, the whole Russian doctrine depended on hammer blows. It never reached the operational flexibility of the Axis, although it achieved high skill in executing it's own doctrine, including logistics.

IT's also debatable whether the Red army actually needed to pause after reaching the Vistula. The Warsaw uprising might have something to do with it.
I think we should be careful not to confuse cause and effect here. The Germans fought tenaciously every step of the way historically, in turn leading to extended positions we players would not accept and would withdraw from. Which in turn leads to Bagration like advances once the cards fell down on Hitlers head.

My point has always been that you cannot compare history to closely with what goes on in the game because we players refuse to make the historical mistakes which in large measure decided the issue.
Liberated from Hitlers folly, the question more becomes: can the Axis player perform better than his historical counterparts? Clearly he can. Which is also the reason I'm against any rules that hamstring the Russians in 1941. Operational freedom is what this game excells at, why would you spoil this by tying either side down to historical mistakes?

In any event, your point is the Soviet have too liberal logistics based on Historical events which do not happen in the game, but still conclude logistics are to liberal. That doesn't sound right to me. Additionally, most offensives took time to prepare because of the incredible amount of arty shells needed for said offensive.
Seems to me this could easily be simulated by cutting back on delivery of ammo needed for arty units. [;)]

[Flaviusx]

The pause was longer than need be due to political considerations, yeah, but the Red Army was running on fumes by the time it hit the Vistula. My read is that Stalin wanted to take Warsaw on the bounce, but once it was clear this couldn't happen (and they did try) was more than happy to see the Poles and Germans slaughter each other and "clarify" the political situation for him. The worse thing from his standpoint would be to liberate Warsaw in conjunction with the Polish resistance, as he would be forced to recognize them rather than his pet puppet government. So he either wanted to liberate it quickly or slowly, in either case minimizing the Polish contribution.

And such lengthy pauses didn't just occur on the Vistula. They also had to do it after reaching the Oder. Hungary also held out as long as it did in part because Malinovsky and Tolubukhin were at the end of a long logistical tether.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: glvaca

Common 76, let's be serious. I said nothing of the sort.

Actually, I'm not sure what you were talking about, because you were responding to Klydon, who most definitely was talking about logistical constraints? Klydon didn't even raised the issues that you addressed, so I guess I'm a little confused...[&:]

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The pause was longer than need be due to political considerations, yeah, but the Red Army was running on fumes by the time it hit the Vistula. My read is that Stalin wanted to take Warsaw on the bounce, but once it was clear this couldn't happen (and they did try) was more than happy to see the Poles and Germans slaughter each other and "clarify" the political situation for him. The worse thing from his standpoint would be to liberate Warsaw in conjunction with the Polish resistance, as he would be forced to recognize them rather than his pet puppet government. So he either wanted to liberate it quickly or slowly, in either case minimizing the Polish contribution.

And such lengthy pauses didn't just occur on the Vistula. They also had to do it after reaching the Oder. Hungary also held out as long as it did in part because Malinovsky and Tolubukhin were at the end of a long logistical tether.

Let's leave the Soviet situation in 1944 as it is, I think it should be considered a separate issue if it is indeed an issue.
The most repeated point is the lack of logistical constraints for the Germans in 1941. I.e. the panzers are too mobile.
My point is they are not, it's very, very easy to run them out of supply. They are on a very tight leash, you have the opportunity to go deep, but once you do, you'll feel the after effects for several turns unless you can take them out of the line for refeul and R&R. And I have proof to support my case in this AAR, played as the Germans, documented the state of the panzers on many occassions, inclusive the amount of mvpts available.
I included when I used HQ buildup. Showed picture before and after.

[Klydon]

Sometimes the intent with the written word is tough.

@glvaca. Lets try this again. If you took offense to anything I posted in this thread that I was taking shots at what you did or your play, you should not have. I have no issue at all with anything you did. You ran a great campaign against an excellent opponent. I am not for "nerfing" anything at this point for the most part, but that the logistics system in this game needs work would be agreed upon by the vast majority of players who have experience with the game.

The game needs a lot of work on the human vs human aspect of things. because the game really doesn't have what I would call a good "feel" for what a eastern game should have. Both sides fought each other hard and there is far too much giving of ground by both sides for little or no apparent penalty.

[hfarrish]

Agreed - it really is a feel thing...it doesn't "feel" right that many if not most games Leningrad is falling by August and German forces can see the spires of Moscow by September. Having played as the Germans in late war scenarios, the relentless, turn after turn pounding the Red Army is able to dish out also doesn't feel right.

The easiest thing to blame is logistics, and I agree that the logistic model allows too many attacks, too much advancing, etc. etc. That said, I don't have the time or energy to actually dig into the formulas and results to prove or disprove the theory.

I am more moving towards a view that the '41 problems are two fold - one is that the Germans can move too fast; it doesn't mean logistics don't impair that, having played as the Germans I agree that they do, but in a one week period when properly supplied they can move way too far...and the second is that the Soviet army is far too weak and regenerates far too slowly such that a Soviet player who suffers anything close to historical losses is looking at an abject, total defeat (i.e. Germans in Gorky in '41). The flip side is that a lot of the Michael T type complaints about brigades and movement are also legit...its just that right now fixing those without addressing the underlying above issues only results in an even more imbalanced campaign between good players.

Its a tough line to hew - I think it was 76mm who once said that two average players would always result in a Soviet win, but between two excellent players its almost always a German win. How that gets fixed, I don't know.

[Michael T]

but between two excellent players its almost always a German win.

I don't agree with that at all. In fact I think the opposite, And to try and prove the theory I will play nothing but Soviet for some time now.

[hfarrish]

I am open to being wrong here and look forward to that match - we're operating off of pretty small public sample sizes (particularly to the excellent v excellent point), so anything to improve that situation is a boon.

I might qualify the statement a little bit by saying that an excellent v. excellent game sans runaway is almost always a German win under current rules. A bit hesitant to say that since I think too much running dooms a Sov to underperformance long term - but it does prevent the total collapse.

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Sometimes the intent with the written word is tough.

@glvaca. Lets try this again. If you took offense to anything I posted in this thread that I was taking shots at what you did or your play, you should not have. I have no issue at all with anything you did.

Ah, let's forget about it [;)]