Thoughts: Simulate the Russian offensive activity in early war, you earn AP by attacking.

[KungPao]

One of the historical STAVKA's mistake is mounting pointless attack. This mistake can be easily avoided by Soviet player . I am not talking about building a forward defence ring, I am talking about in early war Russian attack everywhere, weakening their defence, vigorously advance into closing pockets. As the Soviet military doctorine emphasis on offense, they were attacking on the border, at the gate of Kiev, at Rzhev. Only two periods there was a pause: during the German drive on Moscow in late 1941 and while the Russians were waiting for the Germans to unleash Citadel in mid-1943.

WITE try to simulate this by 1:1=2:1 rule, but this idea has some drawback.
I think one of the potential mechanism for forcing the Russian player to replicate this behavior, is to have Russian player earn Admin points by attacking. The point of AP is in proportion to the number of attack, no matter the result is a successful one or a bloody one.

Just my thought, maybe this idea can be an option in WITE 2.

Thx

[Aurelian]

Are you going to force the historical German mistakes as well? Take Leningrad. No, surround it. Take Moscow. No, send the Panzers of AGC north and south. Ok try and surround it. How about the historical A-A objective? How about the Axis allies in the front line. (Not lining rail lines.) The Finns never attack Leningrad? Or anything else once they get their territory back.

[Pionpion]

Well: I quite agree. It is a major problem in most wargames on the Russian front. The Red Army launched many attacks (demanded by Stalin) that seemed pointless and very costful, buy they also harassed the Germans whose losses were quite heavy and slowed their advance. In a wargame I used to play on map (The Dark Valley), the player is compelled to do a two-dice number of attacks or lose automatically an amount of divisions equal to the unfulfilled attacks. It's quite compelling for the Russian player.
In GGWITE, the Russian player will withdraw as quickly as possible and barricade himself behind the Dnepr (BTW, same problem in another map wargame, World in Flames, where the main russian defense line sets up on the Dnper, far from the frontier - which is completely in contradiction with the obsession of frontiers peculiar to stalinism).

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Pionpion

Well: I quite agree. It is a major problem in most wargames on the Russian front. The Red Army launched many attacks (demanded by Stalin) that seemed pointless and very costful, buy they also harassed the Germans whose losses were quite heavy and slowed their advance. ...

If we are to avoid historical determinacy (aka read a book about what happened) then its capturing this sort of trade off that is key, and making it logical.

Some Soviet attacks were utterly flawed, especially the bad habit of pushing into an emerging salient, thus worsening the final outcome. But especially on AGC, Soviet attacks from July-mid-September and again in November drove AGC to the point of distraction. The manpower and supplies consumed by being forced onto the defensive badly weakened AGC's capacity to attack. On the other hand, both Western and Reserve Fronts wrecked their own defensive capacity leading to the German victories at Vyazma-Bryansk. But, if at both the tactical and operational level the Soviet offensives had been better managed (and I realise this is a hugely implausible 'what if' as the Soviets probably did as well as their command and control capacity allowed them to) they just *might* have forced AGC permanently onto the defensive along the line it reached by the end of August 1941?

So ideally what we need is a logic to making such attacks - ie you are going to lose but in losing do a lot of damage - and a gamble that there is a tipping point where you run the risk of badly weakening the defense.

[EwaldvonKleist]

Well, it is nothing new that the defender takes losses when attacked. The question is not whether the Soviet counterattacks weakened the Germans to some extent, but whether they weakened the Germans more than the Soviets. So was it a good trade off for the Soviets or a bad one?
This question is difficult to answer because this would require an excessive statistical analysis of losses and supply consumption, so it is a matter of belief in this case.

What I believe: The attacker usually takes heavier tactical losses. Therefore the soviets weakened themselves by attacking, because their time would have ususally better spent on building fortifications and they too had equipment shortages.

Therefore, a game which gives no mechanics-inherent reason to attack with bad casualty ratios is a good game. The reason to do such attacks should be a political/victory conditions one, but should not be the result of the combat/supply engine.

Btw.: I know there were several successful counterattack from the Soviets, they should of course be possible and be rewarded.

[loki100]

with respect, its not the result of the combat that mattered.

The Germans, past the Dneipr, were in a supply black hole - even for no operations they could scarcely rebuild their supplies, every Soviet offensive forced the depletion of stocks that were too limited in any case. In terms of manpower, by about August, the Germans were out of manpower (ie what was in the Reserve Army was too few to bring the Ostheer back to strength).

So every Soviet attack consumed impossible to replace German supplies and manpower just by being made. If they had managed more operational/tactical competence, its not impossible that they would have escalated this advantage into actual victories - as it is the time they finally retook the heights at Yeln'ya was a rare competently executed attack, indicating how close to the wire AGC was.

So yes, they weakened both armies and probably on balance they did more damage to their own - opening the gates to the early German wins in Operation Typhoon - but it was a close judgement.

In game, that suggests trying to get the Soviets to attack #because they did, is flawed and likely to lead to frustration. Offering the opportunity to try and weaken the Axis while preserving your own strength better than history is a way to make counter-attacking a tempting strategy (and, to be frank, a damn sight more fun to play). In turn you run the risk of tactical disaster - wrecking individual formations - or an operational disaster, if the Germans manage to turn the tables. Again, all in all, sounds like more fun to me.

[flatsix518]

If the premise is the early Soviet counter-attacks were a mistake and Soviet players should be forced to make these mistakes, I agree with the poster that the German player should be similarly hamstrung. In particular, Hitler's insistence that the Germans not retreat during the Soviet counter-offensive in winter of 41-42.

In general I'm against such mechanisms. The only exceptions are when there are compelling circumstances. If those existed, they should be structured into the game so they indirectly cause players to make historical decisions. But to construct artificial constructs to force them is not good game design.

John
aka Flatsix518

[TheOne]

ORIGINAL: flatsix518

If the premise is the early Soviet counter-attacks were a mistake and Soviet players should be forced to make these mistakes, I agree with the poster that the German player should be similarly hamstrung. In particular, Hitler's insistence that the Germans not retreat during the Soviet counter-offensive in winter of 41-42.

In general I'm against such mechanisms. The only exceptions are when there are compelling circumstances. If those existed, they should be structured into the game so they indirectly cause players to make historical decisions. But to construct artificial constructs to force them is not good game design.

John
aka Flatsix518

A good VP system will solve 90% of the problem.

[Michael T]

A good VP system will solve 90% of the problem.

So true. A well thought out VP system with political/historical realities in mind will channel players toward the historical outcome. A lot of board games I have played do just this.