Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken.

[morvael]

The only way Axis should be allowed to win in 95% cases is by victory points, by comparing their highwatermark and how much was left at the end to historical progress. War on both fronts was unwinnable. I don't care if Axis players complain about no chance for sudden death victory in '41. I just want to get closer to historical results, especially in '42.

[mktours]

i don't support changing the code. in history, the German didn't capture kiev before September (i think every GHC could achieve it), the Russians should be encouraged to fight forward rather than run away. if the game is more likely to be a Russian win, that is more like history. if the two people who like to fight a even game, better play a chess. this war can't be even in itself. when one play German, he choose to be challenged, if he lose, there is no shame in it. just like many people are still willing to play the German side in 1945 scenarios. we play to experience History, more than to determine IQ or skill.

[mktours]

but i see you won overwhelmingly.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

No, even with the Rumanian sneak attack Russia will win easily under the current rule set.

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: morvael

The only way Axis should be allowed to win in 95% cases is by victory points, by comparing their highwatermark and how much was left at the end to historical progress. War on both fronts was unwinnable. I don't care if Axis players complain about no chance for sudden death victory in '41. I just want to get closer to historical results, especially in '42.

That's in fact the correct way to determine 'vicotry' for a side in most historical simulations or wargames. If you do better than historically, you win, if you don't you lose, if you done as good/worse as historically, a draw. A good solution was implemented in the 'Drang nach Osten' scenario that stretches from the start of Barbarossa until the end of the Soviet winter offensive in April '42. Highly recommended.

Klink, Oberst

[mktours]

i fully support this solution. but i think even by doing so, Russian is more likely to win, simply because the SHC won't do those stupid mistakes which Stalin and many of his early genrals did.

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

ORIGINAL: morvael

The only way Axis should be allowed to win in 95% cases is by victory points, by comparing their highwatermark and how much was left at the end to historical progress. War on both fronts was unwinnable. I don't care if Axis players complain about no chance for sudden death victory in '41. I just want to get closer to historical results, especially in '42.

That's in fact the correct way to determine 'vicotry' for a side in most historical simulations or wargames. If you do better than historically, you win, if you don't you lose, if you done as good/worse as historically, a draw. A good solution was implemented in the 'Drang nach Osten' scenario that stretches from the start of Barbarossa until the end of the Soviet winter offensive in April '42. Highly recommended.

Klink, Oberst

[morvael]

The Germans are also free not to make their share of mistakes. They don't have to fight under no retreat orders etc.

However, I enjoy games which encourage (but not force) to repeat some of those mistakes by giving VP for doing sub-optimal things like not running away but fighting forward.

[mktours]

on the other hand, i believe most GHC could do much better than Hitler in the late scenarios.

ORIGINAL: mktours

i fully support this solution. but i think even by doing so, Russian is more likely to win, simply because the SHC won't do those stupid mistakes which Stalin and many of his early genrals did.

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

ORIGINAL: morvael

The only way Axis should be allowed to win in 95% cases is by victory points, by comparing their highwatermark and how much was left at the end to historical progress. War on both fronts was unwinnable. I don't care if Axis players complain about no chance for sudden death victory in '41. I just want to get closer to historical results, especially in '42.

That's in fact the correct way to determine 'vicotry' for a side in most historical simulations or wargames. If you do better than historically, you win, if you don't you lose, if you done as good/worse as historically, a draw. A good solution was implemented in the 'Drang nach Osten' scenario that stretches from the start of Barbarossa until the end of the Soviet winter offensive in April '42. Highly recommended.

Klink, Oberst

[mktours]

we are sharing the opinion,[:)]

ORIGINAL: morvael

The Germans are also free not to make their share of mistakes. They don't have to fight under no retreat orders etc.

However, I enjoy games which encourage (but not force) to repeat some of those mistakes by giving VP for doing sub-optimal things like not running away but fighting forward.

[Michael T]

As so often occurs here people confuse winning the war with winning the game. They are separate and entirely different outcomes within the context of the game, any historical wargame for that matter.

[morvael]

Do the Germans really need to capture Leningrad, Moscow and Rostov in '41 to feel like they are winning the game? Won't that trigger sudden death/260VP condition and end the entire game prematurely? Leningrad or Moscow in '41 should be extremely rare, but still the Germans in '42 should be able to either get Caucasus or one of those cities if they choose so.

[mktours]

Michael, i see what you mean, but i am afraid that the majority of people who are interested in play these games are wanting to experience history, while you might be more enjoying doing a board game and polish your skills.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

As so often occurs here people confuse winning the war with winning the game. They are separate and entirely different outcomes within the context of the game, any historical wargame for that matter.

[mktours]

good point.

ORIGINAL: morvael

Do the Germans really need to capture Leningrad, Moscow and Rostov in '41 to feel like they are winning the game? Won't that trigger sudden death/260VP condition and end the entire game prematurely? Leningrad or Moscow in '41 should be extremely rare, but still the Germans in '42 should be able to either get Caucasus or one of those cities if they choose so.

[mktours]

in fact, the Germans stood no chance to win the war in history, Hitler just shouldn't start it. both Guderian and Manstein admitted this after the war.

ORIGINAL: morvael

Do the Germans really need to capture Leningrad, Moscow and Rostov in '41 to feel like they are winning the game? Won't that trigger sudden death/260VP condition and end the entire game prematurely? Leningrad or Moscow in '41 should be extremely rare, but still the Germans in '42 should be able to either get Caucasus or one of those cities if they choose so.

[mktours]

the reality is: if the developer of the game wants to promote its marketing, it has to promote it as more liking the history than a even game, in which both side enjoy 50-50 chance to win the war.

ORIGINAL: mktours

Michael, i see what you mean, but i am afraid that the majority of people who are interested in play these games are wanting to experience history, while you might be more enjoying doing a board game and polish your skills.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

As so often occurs here people confuse winning the war with winning the game. They are separate and entirely different outcomes within the context of the game, any historical wargame for that matter.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: mktours

in fact, the Germans stood no chance to win the war in history, Hitler just shouldn't start it. both Guderian and Manstein admitted this after the war.

That's completely an opinion.

Germany would have easly won a 1 front war. Based on a few simple facts.

Populations:

German 86 million not even counting minor allies.
Russia 176 million

Combat ratio 3.5 to 1.

Germany was easly winning the war of attrition.

Russia could not build enough trucks to keep logistics above 70%, they had to have western allies help.

Germany had several million combat troops doing nothing in the west.

Germany could have easly "won" the war if Hitler had commited 1 million more men to the east in 41. This fact alone makes The War in Europe problematic. A sandbox WiE would be an easy German win, they will have to find some way to keep GHC players from going all in on the Eastern Front in 41

[mktours]

unfortunately both Guderian and Manstein didn't share the same conclusion with you, they admitted that German shouldn't start that war at all. i didn't think you are better than they were. the best result would be badly wounding the bear, but german inevitably lose in the end.

ORIGINAL: Pelton

ORIGINAL: mktours

in fact, the Germans stood no chance to win the war in history, Hitler just shouldn't start it. both Guderian and Manstein admitted this after the war.

That's completely an opinion.

Germany would have easly won a 1 front war. Based on a few simple facts.

Populations:

German 86 million not even counting minor allies.
Russia 176 million

Combat ratio 3.5 to 1.

Germany was easly winning the war of attrition.

Russia could not build enough trucks to keep logistics above 70%, they had to have western allies help.

Germany had several million combat troops doing nothing in the west.

Germany could have easly "won" the war if Hitler had commited 1 million more men to the east in 41. This fact alone makes The War in Europe problematic. A sandbox WiE would be an easy German win, they will have to find some way to keep GHC players from going all in on the Eastern Front in 41

[mktours]

a simple fact that the Germans didn't even play of the idea of threating Moscow in 1942 tells how big a gap between the two sides.

ORIGINAL: mktours

unfortunately both Guderian and Manstein didn't share the same conclusion with you, they admitted that German shouldn't start that war at all. i didn't think you are better than they were. the best result would be badly wounding the bear, but german inevitably lose in the end.

ORIGINAL: Pelton

ORIGINAL: mktours

in fact, the Germans stood no chance to win the war in history, Hitler just shouldn't start it. both Guderian and Manstein admitted this after the war.

That's completely an opinion.

Germany would have easly won a 1 front war. Based on a few simple facts.

Populations:

German 86 million not even counting minor allies.
Russia 176 million

Combat ratio 3.5 to 1.

Germany was easly winning the war of attrition.

Russia could not build enough trucks to keep logistics above 70%, they had to have western allies help.

Germany had several million combat troops doing nothing in the west.

Germany could have easly "won" the war if Hitler had commited 1 million more men to the east in 41. This fact alone makes The War in Europe problematic. A sandbox WiE would be an easy German win, they will have to find some way to keep GHC players from going all in on the Eastern Front in 41

[morvael]

Several million combat troops in the West in '41? Where did you read about it?

[mktours]

that is the historical knowledge stored in Mr Pelton's mind, who believed sincerely that Leningrad should be an easy cake for the Germans.

ORIGINAL: morvael

Several million combat troops in the West in '41? Where did you read about it?

[swkuh]

Certainly agree that players should have their own values for good outcomes of good play. Then, either side can enjoy outcomes if well played. House rules can level the playing field as needed, what's a victory, what's allowed, and even starting set using the editor can be arranged. What's not to like?

As to issues of Allied/Axis actions, 2nd fronts, 3rd fronts, etc. Introducing political variables probably not a good choice, in this game. Where do you begin and end? It would be a different game entirely. Suppose Japan doesn't attack? England folds? Franco joins Axis? There have been board games that reflect these issues, but not with detailed combat play.