Siberians

[Sugar]

So what's the logic behind leaving the informations in the manual vague, but enable some nerds to extract more precise informations out of the code? Is this a strategy game, or do you have to study informatics to succeed?

Making the outcomes more random doesn't help that much, if the triggers are changed from a certain distance from a city to a range of distances, if this information is also only available to the nerds. In this case it`s hardly changing anything, cause the affected player has no influence at all.

Imho many of the DEs are examples of misconceptions, especially in this case. The Siberians arrived in late 41 because of the russian knowledge of japanese strategy and planning, not because the Germans occupied Rostov and Voronesh.

[sPzAbt653]

I wanted to suggest that the proximity triggers be replaced with a date [which might end the grumpiness], but I don't think I can unless I see something that backs that up. I looked in my two best references, Glantz and Seaton, for a statement as to when and why the Siberians were brought westwards, but neither source actually specifies anything. Nor is there any list of units, only a statement that about a dozen divisions were involved.

[Sugar]

That's not secret knowledge:

On 25 August 1941, Sorge reported to Moscow: "Invest [Ozaki] was able to learn from circles closest to [Japanese Prime Minister] Konoye...that the High Command...discussed whether they should go to war with the USSR. They decided not to launch the war within this year, repeat, not to launch the war this year."[9] On 6 September 1941, an Imperial Conference decided against war with the Soviet Union, and ordered that Japan start preparations for a possible war with the United States and the British Empire, which Ozaki reported to Sorge.[9] At the same time, Ott told Sorge his efforts to get Japan to attack the Soviet Union had all failed.[9] On 14 September 1941, Sorge reported to Moscow: "In the careful judgment of all of us here…the possibility of [Japan] launching an attack, which existed until recently, has disappeared...."[9] Sorge advised the Red Army on 14 September 1941, that Japan would not attack the Soviet Union until:

Moscow was captured
The Kwantung Army was three times the size of Soviet Far Eastern forces
A civil war had started in Siberia.[40]

This information made possible the transfer of Soviet divisions from the Far East, although the presence of the Kwantung Army in Manchuria necessitated the Soviet Union's keeping a large number of troops on the eastern borders...[41]

Various writers have speculated that this information allowed the release of Siberian divisions for the Battle of Moscow, where the German Army suffered its first strategic defeat in the war. To this end, Sorge's information might have been the most important military intelligence work in World War II. However, Sorge was not the only source of Soviet intelligence about Japan as Soviet code-breakers had broken the Japanese diplomatic codes, and Moscow thus knew from signals intelligence that there would be no Japanese attack on the Soviet Union in 1941

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sorge

According to the german Wikipedia, 700.000 troops were transferred from Siberia.

[sPzAbt653]

Thanks for the details, but they don't confirm anything specific. I mean, when preparing historic simulations, I would like to find something substantial, as opposed to admitted speculation. Based on that I would still lean toward proximity event triggers because the fact that the front was in crisis would have forced the Soviets to steal some units from Siberia.

[Sugar]

The finding of the sovyet intel. were the reason they transferred the troops, not the appearance of the Wehrmacht. The only speculation here is if the findings of Sorge or others were the reason. And according to the report, losing Moscow could potentially trigger a japanese attack (at least before the attack at PH), an even more convincing argument to defend at all costs.

In any case it's been the decision of the Sovyets whether to transfer the troops, not that of the OKW like in this game.

[Dorky8]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

It's all in the Strategy Guide, if someone fails to read it and takes on a PBEM game and gets surprised it's on them, it's not the fault of the game and the game should not be changed to accommodate such things. The laugh is that if the other player actually is playing the scripts [I asked but he hasn't answered] then he has halted his advance, and that is to the advantage of the complainer. That again has nothing to do with the game. Learn the rules, find a different opponent, don't PBEM. These are appropriate responses, blaming the game is not.

I'm talking about a concise strategy guide, the strategy guide at the end of the manual is fine but it is far from concise and is missing many things. You nicely laid out the things effecting SU & US mobilization in a thread, something like that for each side would be great. I'm looking for an easy to read "cheat sheet" that clearly lays out the ramifications for ALL the choices (DE's, troop placement, declaring war, rail lines etc). How about Diplomacy effects of declaring war - just a list the Axis & Allies diplomacy effects for declaring war on each country.

Is something like this exists let me know.

This would greatly improve the experience for current & new players.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: Sugar

So what's the logic behind leaving the informations in the manual vague, but enable some nerds to extract more precise informations out of the code? Is this a strategy game, or do you have to study informatics to succeed?

Making the outcomes more random doesn't help that much, if the triggers are changed from a certain distance from a city to a range of distances, if this information is also only available to the nerds. In this case it`s hardly changing anything, cause the affected player has no influence at all.

Hi Sugar

I've been thinking about this and the problem is that as the game is accessible to anyone to inspect and amend, as we've deliberately made as much as possible editable, so there will always be a certain amount of information contained within the scripts that isn't necessarily included in the Strategy Guides or the game itself.

Over the years we have increased the amount of information available. Indeed, when I first started working on Strategic Command I don't think we were producing Strategy Guides at all, and it was something I introduced as the lack of information available bothered me both as a player and as a designer. Not even I can remember everything! [:)]

I certainly have no desire to penalize those players who do spend a bit more time delving into the scripts, but neither do I want them to gain any significant or unfair advantages from doing so.

Unfortunately the work that would be involved in producing comprehensive and fully detailed guides to everything in the scripts would be far too time consuming for us to undertake, and also update as things change.

This will likely always be the case to some extent, although with the War in Europe and World at War games far more is included within the game itself than ever before. For example, it used to be that there was no information in game as to what any research categories meant and the bonuses they provided, and this is all now explained within the research panels.

Hopefully we can import more information automatically like that into future games, as it will be easier for all players then, and hopefully save us some time in writing the Guides etc too.

I hope that explains things a bit better.

Bill

[Sugar]

Hi Bill,

many thx for your answer. I have witnessed the bescribed changes myself, from the first SC onwards, and I must admit your policy on information has increased hugely.

Nevertheless my suggestion would be to reduce DEs as much as possible (especially conditions, timeframes and prerequisites), and implement as much information as necessary into the strategy guide, otherwise the accessibility would suffer and also influence balancing badly, especially if it enables exploitation.

IIrc KZ has already started a thread revisiting DEs months ago, I'm going to search and link it up here if possible.

Here it is: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4362980

[Markiss]

Thanks for chiming in again Bill. You are truly a gem.
Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that the Siberians arrival be tied to a specific date.
It is the current en vogue strategy to launch a late Barbarossa, and in such a case I completely understand why the Siberians would arrive late.
I have also had several PBEM games where my opponent obviously avoided approaching Moscow, likely for the sole purpose of not triggering the Siberians, and these games did not prompt me to write a post about it, as I understood why the Siberians did not arrive at the historical date.
What did prompt me to write a post was a game where my opponent launched a Barbarossa on time, and followed almost exactly the historical advance schedule, and yet did not trigger a Siberian arrival. This is what bothered me.
My opponent did eventually capture Moscow, but not until nearly 2 years later, so I do not have a problem with the game play aspect of it, just the ahistorical response of the Soviets.
I was just suggesting a review of the scripts to maybe allow a historical response if the historical situation was closely replicated.
I do not expect any given game to follow a historical course, but if it does follow closely the historical course, I would like to see a historical response.
Thanks again for your efforts, you guys are the best.

[LLv34Mika]

Actually it would be easy to change the script. If the Sibirians get triggered when one of the following cities gets captured... Leningrad, Moscow, Voronesz, Rostov.

Or you pull the line closer to the Germans and make it Leningrad, Moscow, Dneprpetrovsk and Kursk.
Or you trigger these units when a certain number of NM objectives are captured. Can vary from 3 - 5... Smolensk and Kiev usually get captured first.

And if the developers really stick to their events (what I hope) I would make them more a two-edged-sword. You get something now? That means you have to pay in a certain way later. And as requested... please remove always yes/always no events. Nice to read the fluff but no decision necessary. The other way is to make some always yes DEs more expensive and some always no DEs more attractive. I really love the events and in some cases they could add some strategic value to the game.

Warsaw Ghetto rising? Why not place some weak (Str 3 - 5) partisans somewhere in Poland! Doenitz changing the strategy to more U-Boats instead surface ships? Give the Germans an event to pay for some subs that will arrive later (of course cheaper than buying them)

I would also add some DEs that make it easier for the Germans to defend. As soon as the Allies start to fight their way back the game really turns into a slaughterhouse for the Axis player. So a "total war" event would be nice to trigger when the Germans lost the first one or two NM objectives (or like above, when the Russians re-capture 2 out of 5 cities) giving the Germans a huge national morale bonus and/or some more units.

Just some ideas... glad if you like it, also glad if not.
Happy 2019!!!

[Dorky8]

Most DE's just trip up new players, I would bet 90% of DE's are always answered the same by experienced players.

Unfortunately there isn't an easily accessible source with ALL the information on game rules.

It makes it very difficult for a newer player to get up to speed.

[FriendlyKomissar]

Interesting topic this, despite the actual trigger points for when the Siberians actually arrive there is one that does bothers me

They should be deployed on the railway line, as some of them deploy beside the railway so you cannot operate them out - and if you want to reinforce them you loses a further turn in doing so.

[BillRunacre]

Hi

If you (or anyone else reading this) has a screenshot handy this will help me to work out if we can improve their arrival locations.

[FriendlyKomissar]

Hi Bill,

I was going to post a screenshot but I haven't had any in the recent game.

Just as they deploy around the city in a circle, you can have them deploy on the actual railway so they will look more like an "x" shape spreading out, that way they are ready do be deployed straight away.

I will get a screenshot to you ASAP though but i think you get the idea

(Edit, thinking of the word edit I just used the editor and a crude screenshot to give you the idea of what i mean!)

[BillRunacre]

Thanks for this, we can probably improve this by spreading their deployment over more resources, it might not lead to all of them being on a railway but at least more of them should be.

[The Land]

I'd wondered whether the location of the Siberians was deliberate to slow down their deployment!

The triggers could probably use some work. I am always surprised about how much progress the Germans can make without triggering them - it struck me as odd that I managed to get within 2 hexes of Leningrad (maybe actually in it) before they showed up...

[forestrouse]

Every single PBEM game I have had as Allies, the Siberians do not arrive until April 27th, 1942, and arrive at the end of my turn, and so are not available to actually be moved until late May. By the time you operate them, it is June.

Humm. I partially see the point. The Siberians were fully deployed December 1941 but also the Germans were within 15 km of Moscow too and had taken Rostov (only to be forced to retreat). I think it is a debatable point whether or not the Siberians must be released or not. It is a perfectly reasonable position that the Siberian deployment is a variable as opposed to a certain event. It is equally reasonable to consider that historically they were released starting around October 1941 or so (I read a history where the first Siberian units started showing up in the September-October 1941 time frame). The wiki article quoted in this thread certainly reflects that Soviet uncertainty of what Japan would do in the far east. Sorge's intelligence strongly pointed to Japan not attacking the Soviet Union because they needed to change the strategic calculus with regard to the oil embargo and its effects which led to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. The point being that the Soviet's could not be absolutely certain that Japan would not attack Manchuria and that transferring the Siberian troops entailed a risk.

If I were to pick a nit, it would be that the Shock troops don't appear to be very 'shocking'. My reading of the accounts of the war were that they had great effect in the Winter 1941 but maybe their role was overstated in the literature and that they were not particularly capable.