Congratulations !

[WingedIncubus]

You seem all to go from the postulate that the Center theater is always where the game is. I'd be curious to know the metrics on what most people choose as German pre-turn strategy, because I get the feeling from your posts there is a widespread belief the only good choices is "Moscow or Bust" or "Military Independence/go for the Center", and that being impossible to replicate real life is a shortcoming.

If I may be bold, even impudent, this is not WITE. In WITE what counts is murdering as many Russian counters before the mud and the cold arrives, and if you fail you might as well resign (as many, many, many Axis players do as flaviusx might attest). There is no political or economical reasoning that makes the Axis player go for Leningrad, Moscow, or Rostov/Don area to bring in more VPs. In the end of things, the goal is murdering counters until you reach a magic point where Soviet has lost too much manpower to recuperate, against the Soviet player rushing as many counters the deepest possible to prevent said destruction of its counters.

Here, I may say, going for the Center and the classic Minsk pocket is not always the winning move. If Hitler says that my first objective is Leningrad, the pay off is in the north; if Rostov, it's in the south. If it's destroying enemy HQs, it's wherever I can cut-off and destroy the most HQs. When it changes, I must adapt to keep the momentum or risk drawing or losing the game. because that's what is bringing the VPs to win the game. If the Soviet player concentrates his replacements to wall Smolensk when my objective is in fact Rostov or Leningrad, according to game theory I am in fact winning. Minsk and Smolensk is irrelavant, racing for Moscow is largely irrelevant. It's a tool to keep pressure and create crisises to make Stalin wasting precious reinforcements where it wouldn't count had he a God's view of the situation.

There is also a psychological aspect not to neglect. If the German keeps pushing good the Soviet player will never have enough replacement armies to adequately defend all three fronts. It's part of the design. It must guestimate where the German player is going while taking in account what city he must absolutely defend at all cost. It's like poker theory : If I make the other player fold when I am beat if he could see my cards, I win; if I make him call or raises when he would be beat could he see my cards, I also win. It's the part of game theory and elaborated prisoner's dilemma that this game brings that makes me fall in love with it.

[lancer]

Hi,

How far to adhere to history is an interesting question.

The closer you configure the game to historical progress the more the game ends up on rails.

The approach taken with Barbarossa is to provide a framework where historical outcomes are possible, and likely, but to provide scope for alternative strategies and replayability.

A good, experienced, German Player, on normal difficulty, has the ability to win the game (vs. AI) on a time scale that is well in advance of the historical outcome despite any early game perceived lack of progress.

With PBEM the game is well balanced and Player ability is the predominate factor in who prevails although the Soviet Player has a greater latitude for mistakes than the German.

Having the game attempt to track a day by day historical outcome would result in only a recreation of what happened and take away the possibility of different strategic approaches.

It would also make for a lousy game. The multi-week period after Smolensk when Hitler dithered and dallied, shuffling Panzergruppes and Armies from one objective to another isn't represented. As the Player you can focus on an objective and keep going. To instigate an enforced period of dithering in order to correctly track the historical trajectory wouldn't be much fun.

Cheers,
Cameron

[Flaviusx]

So far I've chosen Hitler only as the Germans, because of the extra PPs.

His objectives tend to change over the course of the game. This can actually work in the benefit of the Axis player.

[mannerheim4]

ORIGINAL: Drakken

You seem all to go from the postulate that the Center theater is always where the game is. I'd be curious to know the metrics on what most people choose as German pre-turn strategy, because I get the feeling from your posts there is a widespread belief the only good choices is "Moscow or Bust" or "Military Independence/go for the Center", and that being impossible to replicate real life is a shortcoming.

Drakken,

No, the Center is not where the game is - I mention it in my posts because it is easier to see the results of blitzkrieg in the Center, although the North also is another place. I am indeed debating immediately assigning Hoth to help in the North on the first turn. The terrain has the potential to show the largest pocket in the Center.

I also agree that following Hitler is a wise move because of the Political Points, I haven't tried it any other way. I certainly do not go along with Halder in thinking that Moscow makes any real difference, I believe Hitler was correct.

If a simulation is really meant to be a historical simulation, then the player should be able to at least duplicate things. The thing about this game is that it has replayability, as you don't have to go with the historical setting, and the simple AI choices will give different results for the Germans to ponder.

ORIGINAL: Drakken

If I may be bold, even impudent, this is not WITE. In WITE what counts is murdering as many Russian counters before the mud and the cold arrives, and if you fail you might as well resign (as many, many, many Axis players do as flaviusx might attest).

My point has nothing to do with winning WITE. I'm not talking about winning at WITE and which game has better victory conditions. I'm talking about the combat model.

Now, if a designer is influenced by "general mud/winter" as the overriding reasoning behind the German defeat, then he will likely tune the game to give the Soviets less power or the Germans more power - while enacting harsh penalties when the weather turns bad.

ORIGINAL: Drakken


Here, I may say, going for the Center and the classic Minsk pocket is not always the winning move.

I believe you are missing my point. It is not on how to win the game. It is how you get there and whether the combat model truly represents reality of the time. When you play a game, you play within the rules of the game.

ORIGINAL: Drakken

There is also a psychological aspect not to neglect. If the German keeps pushing good the Soviet player will never have enough replacement armies to adequately defend all three fronts. It's part of the design. It must guestimate where the German player is going while taking in account what city he must absolutely defend at all cost. It's like poker theory : If I make the other player fold when I am beat if he could see my cards, I win; if I make him call or raises when he would be beat could he see my cards, I also win. It's the part of game theory and elaborated prisoner's dilemma that this game brings that makes me fall in love with it.

Considering the size of the German panzer corps, it should be relativly obvious in which of the three directions the offense is moving towards pretty quickly. But again, I'm not talking about how to win the game.

Regards

[mannerheim4]

ORIGINAL: lancer

Hi,

How far to adhere to history is an interesting question.

The closer you configure the game to historical progress the more the game ends up on rails.

IF the game does not have an alternative history selection available. DC3 does have a box to check for historical settings (or not).

I do believe that the point of an historical simulation is to simulate... well, you know.

IF a player made all the same decisions, you would expect similar results - without taking into account individual random battle results, which could certainly flip things around if a key city unexpectedly holds out. But usually, such a game allows the historical simulator to play "what if" the Germans had run two Army Groups in AGN? Etc. If the combat model is true, you can see "accurate" results and be satisfied with your hypothesis.

ORIGINAL: Lancer

The approach taken with Barbarossa is to provide a framework where historical outcomes are possible, and likely, but to provide scope for alternative strategies and replayability.

A good, experienced, German Player, on normal difficulty, has the ability to win the game (vs. AI) on a time scale that is well in advance of the historical outcome despite any early game perceived lack of progress.

Victory based upon point levels is difficult to judge - I suppose for a simulator, it is whether you can do better than the original, rather than gather a number of points.

ORIGINAL: Lancer

With PBEM the game is well balanced and Player ability is the predominate factor in who prevails although the Soviet Player has a greater latitude for mistakes than the German.

Having the game attempt to track a day by day historical outcome would result in only a recreation of what happened and take away the possibility of different strategic approaches.

You know that's not true. A player does not have to make all of the same decisions as the originals.
If the model holds up under historical testing, it should hold up to alternative strategies that can be attempted.

As a historical simulator, I will first see how well the combat model holds up under an historically driven battle. If it is similar, than I can feel confident that I can play "what if", being assured that my hypothesis can be accurately tested.

When IF I set up two Army groups in the North. How does it affect the overall campaign? ETc....

Anyway, I appreciate the comments, but now "general wife" is on the move...

Regards

[kosmoface]

Maybe you play some more?

I don't know why you are so harsh in your criticism, when you played only a few turns? Do you know all the in and outs of the game already, even for those turns? I can't believe that.

And regarding historical results: If you look at history... what we actually know is that something in exactly these same circumstances happened, BUT what if Stalin took the invasion serious from the get go? What would have been when the High Command didn't let the Panzers loose? Then you would see another result and all games had to replicate these results - and everybody would complain that it is impossible to reach Moscow or Stalingrad.

Maybe what happened was an underachievement, maybe it was the maximum possible, maybe, maybe... it is just a result of many decisions and actions and all these could have gone either way.

In my mind history in of itself is a big what if and in the games replicating history this is difficult to replicate exactly. Take WITE as something on the one end of the spectrum and DC:B is on the opposite end of the spectrum what was possible. And if it feels right it is probably right I'd say.

[Vic]

Just wanted to say I am reading this thread as well. Cameron and I are open to tweaks where necessary, but are taking our time to look at everything from all angles (like indeed balance) as well as analyzing for example the metrics results so far.

The thing I wanted to add to the discussion topic above is the AI.

The AI is making different choices from the ones Stalin made (or a human playing historically) and has a tendency to NOT keep any armies in strategic reserves.

Already started fine-tuning that a bit in the last patch 1.01.

Best wishes,
Vic

[mannerheim4]

ORIGINAL: kosmoface

Maybe you play some more?

I don't know why you are so harsh in your criticism, when you played only a few turns? Do you now all the in and outs of the game already, even for those turns? I can't believe that.

Kosmoface,

I have played DC1 and especially DC2 a lot. I have played 6 one month "games" with DC3. I feel I am pretty familiar with the game system.

I apologize to all who feel that I am making a personal attack by pointing out what I believe is a short-coming in the game. I do not believe I am being "too harsh" by making a constructive criticism and providing some possible solutions to generate discussion. I see Vic appreciates that. The point is to stir discussion. I certainly am open to hearing other points of view. Others have suggested that I continue playing on - although I am not sure how that changes my opinion on the game mechanics simulating the first month. Rather, "playing on" would "convince me" that the game is well balanced and that the Germans can win, even with a muted start.

I have explained my reasonings, and I am not so much interested in "winning" vs another human, as to using the game as a "lab" to test some hypothesis regarding alternative starts.

As an aside, I know this is outside the scope of "playing as Halder", but it would have been interesting to have an alternative 15 May or 1 June start date, as if Hitler had decided to ignore Mussolini's failure in Greece and its effects on Barbarossa. A number of Germans blame the later start on the defeat. But I regress....

However, with all that said, I will take your advice and continue playing - perhaps to turn 10, as Vic suggests.

ORIGINAL: kosmoface

And regarding historical results: If you look at history... what we actually know is that something in exactly these same circumstances happened, BUT what if Stalin took the invasion serious from the get go? What would have been when the High Command didn't let the Panzers loose? Then you would see another result and all games had to replicate these results - and everybody would complain that it is impossible to reach Moscow or Stalingrad.

Well, I'm no game designer, I can only imagine the balance one must strive to achieve when looking at historical realism vs game balance (each side having a chance to win). WHO would want to play the Germans in an historical Bagration game? Ha... But with a good game engine, you COULD, ignoring that you will not have a balanced game where either player could win (without resorting to some sort of point system to measure your ability vs the actual commanders)

A game with a good combat engine can be used to establish a lot of "what if's" and the player can feel relatively confident that he learned something about the choices available to the commander. I think that is why most wargamers play these games. To see how they would do given the same set of circumstances. However, if the player perceives a potential issue with the "rules", he loses that confidence and while the game may be "fun" vs another player, it can also be very frustrating when meeting history is impossible.

The decision making structure within the game does a pretty good job on pushing orders from above. This is the game's greatest strength, in my opinion. I don't know too many games that do something like this, or simulate the effects of relationships at higher command levels. Vic et al. have done a great job on this. The "tactical cards" are a great idea, but I think they should have more effect - my opinion. Being able to move one more hex isn't that much of an advantage having Guderian leading the way. But the idea in of itself is excellent, a great abstraction that gives the player many alternatives to use.

ORIGINAL: kosmoface


Maybe what happened was an underachievement, maybe it was the maximum possible, maybe, maybe... it is just a result of many decisions and actions and all these could have gone either way.

In my mind history in of itself is a big what if and in the games replicating history this is difficult to replicate exactly. Take WITE as something on the one end of the spectrum and DC:B is on the opposite end of the spectrum what was possible. And if it feels right it is probably right I'd say.

WITE has its own weaknesses as well. A number of the strengths of DC3 make it clear where WITE lacks.

THanks for your time.

Regards

[mannerheim4]

ORIGINAL: Vic

Just wanted to say I am reading this thread as well. Cameron and I are open to tweaks where necessary, but are taking our time to look at everything from all angles (like indeed balance) as well as analyzing for example the metrics results so far.

The thing I wanted to add to the discussion topic above is the AI.

The AI is making different choices from the ones Stalin made (or a human playing historically) and has a tendency to NOT keep any armies in strategic reserves.

Already started fine-tuning that a bit in the last patch 1.01.

Best wishes,
Vic

Vic,

I think many military historians would agree that Stalin's decisions kept the Germans "in the game", so to speak. A number of his decisions put the Soviet Union at even greater risk and resulted in numerous thousands of lost Soviet soldiers and ground. I hope it is not your intent to make the AI "too good"!

Regards

[willgamer]

ORIGINAL: mannerheim4

.... I hope it is not your intent to make the AI "too good"!

Regards

That, in a nutshell, is the heart of the game design conundrum for East Front games.

If we grant that German's generals were graded 4 or 5 star, while the SUs were usually 2 or 3 star at the start of the conflict, then the SU overcomes this as the war goes on by reason of men, material, and better leaders, then wins overwhelmingly in the end, a 4-5 star human (or even 4 star AI) SU player will enjoy a considerable advantage.

This is not so much a problem in most other conflicts, such as the American Civil War where there was generally parity in the leadership.

It may be necessary to concede that the more accurately the situation in RL is modeled, the more likely a SU win between equal players.

So when a slow start experienced by players, even against the normal AI, many historically aware German players will sense that they are hopelessly behind the curve by turn 2 or 3 and not be inclined to press on the balancing of later turns. Mannerheim4 has identified some of the reasons.

Hopefully Cameron and Vic can figure out a way to accelerate the early turns for the Germans while balancing it out later.

[mannerheim4]

ORIGINAL: willgamer

That, in a nutshell, is the heart of the game design conundrum for East Front games.

If we grant that German's generals were graded 4 or 5 star, while the SUs were usually 2 or 3 star at the start of the conflict, then the SU overcomes this as the war goes on by reason of men, material, and better leaders, then wins overwhelmingly in the end, a 4-5 star human (or even 4 star AI) SU player will enjoy a considerable advantage.

I agree with you. I suppose the answer is using victory points to provide your balance. Poof, you are done! Have an historically accurate game that simulates what the generals had to face, give the players the opportunity to run with it, and then grade them based upon a point system for your play balance.

ORIGINAL: willgamer

So when a slow start experienced by players, even against the normal AI, many historically aware German players will sense that they are hopelessly behind the curve by turn 2 or 3 and not be inclined to press on the balancing of later turns. Mannerheim4 has identified some of the reasons.

Hopefully Cameron and Vic can figure out a way to accelerate the early turns for the Germans while balancing it out later.

Point system for victory...

I think some gamers will be turned off by finding out that they are "behind schedule" so soon in the game.

Regards

[ChuckBerger]

Very interesting conversation. One thing that really struck me reading the Glantz article referred to another thread is just how much the Soviets tried to counterattack in 1941, usually with disastrous consequences. He attributes many of the Soviet disasters to the fact that the Russian generals had already squandered much of their strength and organization in poorly-planned and hopeless counterattacks, for instance in the Smolensk sector while the panzer were busy at Kiev, thus setting up the initial disasters in Operation Typhoon.

A human player is very unlikely to squander his strength time and time again in dubious counterattacks. I do wonder though whether it's too easy for the Russian to shift to a solid defensive footing, especially in the centre. Perhaps all soviet armies should begin in "offensive" posture, rather than neutral? That would have the effect of really encouraging Russian counterattacks (in keeping with their doctrine and Stalin's consistent demands for counterattacks), and also making it harder to put together those lines of 3-divisions per hex, two hexes deep, fully entrenched troops.

But I'm still getting a feel for how all this plays out over a whole game against a real human. Maybe resist the urge for major changes until there is more data about full games, human v human...

[Flaviusx]

Not seeing a pacing problem here, tbh. I think the game works as is.

It's not easy to design a game that fully duplicates the advances of June and July while at the same time keeping things from going off the rails later on. WITE never quite managed it, imo. (See the infamous Lvov pocket over there, along with the fact that Leningrad is rather too vulnerable. Op tempo is too damn high.)

This game chooses to smooth things out over the course of the entire campaign at the sacrifice of some fidelity in the first month. I think it is a perfectly valid design choice. And even here the German can outpace the historical advances in the south during the early period.

I took Kiev on August 2 in my own PBEM, and Kirovograd the following turn. This offsets things elsewhere.

[mannerheim4]

ORIGINAL: ChuckBerger

Very interesting conversation. One thing that really struck me reading the Glantz article referred to another thread is just how much the Soviets tried to counterattack in 1941, usually with disastrous consequences. He attributes many of the Soviet disasters to the fact that the Russian generals had already squandered much of their strength and organization in poorly-planned and hopeless counterattacks, for instance in the Smolensk sector while the panzer were busy at Kiev, thus setting up the initial disasters in Operation Typhoon.

Many of the Soviet attacks during the first few days were a result of STAVKA demanding Pavlov and others to push pointless attacks that had no chance of success. Apparently, generals feel that they have a better handle on the situation from several thousand miles away than those at the battle. Hmmm, that sort of continues to this day.....

So the game system must introduce some sort of mechanism that forces the player to attack - otherwise, too many Soviets can escape the pockets closing in on them. Agree, a human player is much less likely to duplicate that in a game.

ORIGINAL: ChuckBerger

But I'm still getting a feel for how all this plays out over a whole game against a real human. Maybe resist the urge for major changes until there is more data about full games, human v human...

Yes, that should be expected. There needs to be a relative consensus when making such changes to a game that has already been playtested, etc. before changes are made to the product.

Regards

[mannerheim4]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Not seeing a pacing problem here, tbh. I think the game works as is.

It's not easy to design a game that fully duplicates the advances of June and July while at the same time keeping things from going off the rails later on. WITE never quite managed it, imo. (See the infamous Lvov pocket over there, along with the fact that Leningrad is rather too vulnerable. Op tempo is too damn high.)

This game chooses to smooth things out over the course of the entire campaign at the sacrifice of some fidelity in the first month. I think it is a perfectly valid design choice. And even here the German can outpace the historical advances in the south during the early period.

I took Kiev on August 2 in my own PBEM, and Kirovograd the following turn. This offsets things elsewhere.

With all due respect, I think you are confusing "pacing", as far as game balance between two players (thus, your several comments about the need to "continue playing" and other future battle results that will "balance" things for the players, if "only you would wait and see") with the game mechanics used to simulate tanks moving across uncontested ground. It was never my intention to address which player has an advantage viz a viz the end game and victory. I am merely noting that breakthroughs as simulated are underwhelming. I haven't played long enough, perhaps this is the same issue that appears for the Soviets in December.

Regards

[Speedysteve]

Am still thoroughly enjoying this game. On my 3rd run as Axis vs AI and I'm still constantly learning about which moves are best, which formations to send where, learning knowledge when to use 1 or 2 etc divisions to dislodge varying enemies in varying strength in varying terrain etc. All of this with constant time pressure exacerbated by the logistics train and demands of Strategic Command. Loving it....[8D]

[James Ward]

I haven't played the game a lot, only bought it a few days ago, but I like it. It is the best game I have played that really makes the tugs of command an integral part of the game.

I do see where some of the suggestions are coming from though. I have played a ton of east front wargames and while most had issues that made them better or worse the thing I recall from them is there are always many severe penalties on the russians and bonuses for the germans in the opening phase of the invasion that gradually peter out. From buffing german attacks to freezing soviets in place and everything in between it seems like everything has been tried. I assume this is because there needs to be a way to simulate the surprise of the invasion and the poor condition of the soviet armies regarding command, communitation and logistics. There doesn't seem to be that present to much degree in this game. There are a few benefits to the germans and some restrictions to the russians but not a lot. Unless I am missing something the attack/defense bonuses and the russian lack of command seems to be the main effects.

To me it seems like the russian units are just to ready for the attack, they are mostly at full supply, full integrity, full readiness and fully entrenched. It does make it hard to blow holes in their lines and push the panzers through. This doesn't seem right to me. I don't see the mad scramble for the russians to form another line just to hold for a day or two until it too gets smashed and another must be formed and so on until weather/german supply situation/russians finally getting their act together eventually let the russian decide to make a stand.

Perhaps a few things could be tried, not necessarily all of them.
The front line russian armies could all be set to 50% (or whatever number makes sense) integrity so there is more of a chance to force a surrender in the first few turns.
The readiness of all russian units could be lowered to some number that would stress their supply situation even more and require them to slowly come up to full effectvness.
The ZOC effect of the russian front line armies could be 1/2 or 1/4 for a set number of turns (not sure if this is doable).
The cost to move into enemy territory could be reduced or eliminated if a unit has X number of recon points.
All russian front line army units in clear terrain have 0 fortifications the first turn.
Allow commander cards to be played in the preset up turn so you can get the benefit of the focus cards one the first turn.

This game has so many good things going on with it. It has the right amount of counters (most games have 10 times the number for 1/2 the fun IMO), the cards which add so much that is missing from all other east front barbarossa games, the command situation which is fantastic with not knowing if all of you units will get full move or even be able to move at all, the supply routines which are simple to understand but really do make you face tough choices each turn and so on but it just seems to be missing that initial rush that upsets the balance so much. It would be nice if that could be added without messing up all the other fantastic parts of the game.

[Remmes]

Good post James Ward. This game is a real gem, it just needs some tweaking in order to reach its full potential. Hope it is doing well sales-wise for the devs.

[mannerheim4]

ORIGINAL: James Ward

I haven't played the game a lot, only bought it a few days ago, but I like it. It is the best game I have played that really makes the tugs of command an integral part of the game.

I do see where some of the suggestions are coming from though. I have played a ton of east front wargames and while most had issues that made them better or worse the thing I recall from them is there are always many severe penalties on the russians and bonuses for the germans in the opening phase of the invasion that gradually peter out. From buffing german attacks to freezing soviets in place and everything in between it seems like everything has been tried. I assume this is because there needs to be a way to simulate the surprise of the invasion and the poor condition of the soviet armies regarding command, communitation and logistics. There doesn't seem to be that present to much degree in this game. There are a few benefits to the germans and some restrictions to the russians but not a lot. Unless I am missing something the attack/defense bonuses and the russian lack of command seems to be the main effects.

To me it seems like the russian units are just to ready for the attack, they are mostly at full supply, full integrity, full readiness and fully entrenched. It does make it hard to blow holes in their lines and push the panzers through. This doesn't seem right to me. I don't see the mad scramble for the russians to form another line just to hold for a day or two until it too gets smashed and another must be formed and so on until weather/german supply situation/russians finally getting their act together eventually let the russian decide to make a stand.

Fully agree, it is literally impossible to achieve some of the German's historical success in the first week:

Vilnius, first turn.
Dvinsk, first turn.
Brobruisk bridgehead turn2.

I fully agree with your sense of the first week and what is even possible in the game.

ORIGINAL: James Ward

Perhaps a few things could be tried, not necessarily all of them.
The front line russian armies could all be set to 50% (or whatever number makes sense) integrity so there is more of a chance to force a surrender in the first few turns.
The readiness of all russian units could be lowered to some number that would stress their supply situation even more and require them to slowly come up to full effectvness.
The ZOC effect of the russian front line armies could be 1/2 or 1/4 for a set number of turns (not sure if this is doable).
The cost to move into enemy territory could be reduced or eliminated if a unit has X number of recon points.
All russian front line army units in clear terrain have 0 fortifications the first turn.
Allow commander cards to be played in the preset up turn so you can get the benefit of the focus cards one the first turn.

I would agree that either 50% integrity or readiness would better simulate the border units. Soviets hardly surrender/break unless overwhelmed by 3 or more German divisions.
Not sure about reducing the effect of ZOC, but an increase in AP for the first turn would go a long way. I would say let the German cards be useable on turn one - that would provide your easy fix to get more AP's first turn. I don't quite understand the thinking behind why it isn't, given it is the first turn of a major invasion.

ORIGINAL: James Ward

This game has so many good things going on with it. It has the right amount of counters (most games have 10 times the number for 1/2 the fun IMO), the cards which add so much that is missing from all other east front barbarossa games, the command situation which is fantastic with not knowing if all of you units will get full move or even be able to move at all, the supply routines which are simple to understand but really do make you face tough choices each turn and so on but it just seems to be missing that initial rush that upsets the balance so much. It would be nice if that could be added without messing up all the other fantastic parts of the game.

I agree, the number of units makes it playable, there is a lot to love about the game. I'm hoping they can correct a few things on the first couple turns. I see that they are moving back the Soviet Army reinforcements that show up around Smolensk, etc., that will help, too. Good to see feedback is constructive and people are listening.

Regards

[Flaviusx]

Mannerheim, a game that allows you to do all that stuff on turn 1 is also a game that allows you to pull off a massive Lvov pocket on turn one. It also means Leningrad falls nearly every game and is practically indefensible since most of NW Front goes poof in a massive pocket on turn one.

This is what happened in WITE.

No thanks.

There is more to life and wargaming than turn one. Turn one is so weird and exceptional that it is very difficult to design a game that gets that right without becoming a mess later on and for the entire rest of the game.

The devs are making changes in a different sort of way, one that doesn't wreck the integrity of the design. I fully support the staggered reinforcements for Timoeshenko, for example. That's an easy and sensible change. But mucking around with core game mechanics in order to duplicate incredible early advance rates is just asking for trouble. Once the Germans are off to the races, they're off and the whole rest of the game suffers.