Feedback on Camp' 42, anyone?

[pyguinard]

Hi everybody,

Morphy and I have just started two '42 Campaign against each other (mirror games, where each players play both sides) After only a couple of turns (end of August), the Soviets are in an intenable situations in the two games.

In game #1, my Germans made a feint against Stalingrad but sent their best troops against Moscow that was captured by the third turn. Even if Morphy managed to recapture the city, the pressure was kept strong. Kalinin was captured by mid August and on the following turn, the Vologda-Tikhvin road was cut, leaving a whole bunch of troops without any supply between Kalinin and Leningrad.

In game #2 (see picture), my goal as the Russians was to try to keep the Germans off balance by not putting all my reinforcements against the bulk of the german forces that have been smashing everything between Bryansk and Tula. When the time came, not only that Morphy was able to pursue his advance on Moscow from the South (Tula) but strong Russian units were left isolated in the Rhzev-Velikye Luki sector. In all other regions except Leningrad, the german advance seems unstoppable. Stalingrad could be captured by the beginning of September, Saratov also. Maikop is under siege and Moscow could also fall

My question to whoever tried this campaign in PBEM mode is to know if you feel that Germans have an unfair advantage over the Soviets or is it simply because the way the battles evolved between Morphy and I?

Any input is welcome!

[K62_]

There are 2 problems with the '42 campaign:
1. The Germans can cut off about half the Soviet army on the first turn. You need a truce (at least north of Kharkov) for the first week in order to deal with this.
2. It's possible in v3.3 for the Nazis to build all Tigers, which are incredibly effective in '42. You need some production house rule to take care of this.
Otherwise the campaign is quite balanced and playable. I've seen both sides winning it in PBEM games. Of course, as Soviet you'll have to follow history and weaken the south to make Moscow invulnerable, so the Germans' best bet would be a thrust for Stalingrad.

[pyguinard]

Thanks for your input K62!!
I am surprised that nobody else has anything to say though...[:(]

In our case problem 1. might have been what skewed the odds in favor of the Nazis. [X(]What kind of truce would you suggest? Would it be some rule forbidding passing through the gaps in the russian front line on the first week?

[Morphy]

I lost Moscow on third turn because I underestimated Germans. I've played a few times as Soviets against the AI and the result was always the same: in September Stalino, Orel and Kursk were recaptured.

When I played 1942 campaign against PYG, a human opponent, I played the same way: all my reserves were moved south while PYG severly strenghtened Moscow area. The result was obvious: he suffered a terrible defeat in south but seized Moscow. But what good is Stalino if all Moscow factories are gone?

I think I should have played much more conservatively instead of fighting an open battle, and that is how I'll carry out my next game.

Anyhow, I'll try do defend Moscow - Germans have suffered heavy losses - 25K inf. squads,4.500 AFVs and so on, so maybe if I survive till October I'll get enough replacements to hold them a little longer, rebuild my army and wait till Allieds land in Africa.

[me410]

HI is any one interested in 1942 game where we set the date about a month ealier, Then
give both sides a month to deploy thier forces.

[pyguinard]

ORIGINAL: Morphy

(...)

I think I should have played much more conservatively instead of fighting an open battle, and that is how I'll carry out my next game.

(...)

So Morphy, you also think that the 1942 Campaign is well balanced?

[Morphy]

Well, definitely 1942 campaign is less unbalanced than 1941 campaign.

We should try one more time.

[Panzerclaret]

Put it down to experience, and then try again.

I've only been playing this game for a coule of weeks, and then only occasionally (as work and impending Wedding and Honeymoon commitments) but it seems a bit of a cracker.

Just one quick point though, if its possible to build Tigers in '42, then surely the only way to play it is to play it historically, and leave the computer in control of production/General changes etc.

[pyguinard]

ORIGINAL: Panzerclaret

(...)
Just one quick point though, if its possible to build Tigers in '42, then surely the only way to play it is to play it historically, and leave the computer in control of production/General changes etc.

Being able to take control of factory prodution to better support the strategies you have opted for in a scenario is one of the great features of the game (the best feature being the two game phases, plotting+executional ... but this is a different story).

I remembered reading somewhere ( http://www.achtungpanzer.com/tiger.htm ) that the Nazis were able to produce four Sturmgeschütz III Ausf G (82 500RM) for the cost of a single King Tiger (330 000RM). The Tiger I was approximately 300 000RM. This is simply not well represented in the actual game setup where Tiger tanks are way too cheap to produce.

I haven't took the time to check but I suspect that Tiger tanks don't suck as much oil ressources than what they actually did during WWII (2.75 gallons per mile on normal cross-country running!! [X(] ) Not to mention the intensive maintenance that those vehicules required to run well.

Those two reasons together make it unfair to concentrate armor production on Tiger Tanks since this would make a totally unrealistic game. Again, being able to produce the most adequate units for the needs and also, to choose the appropriate moment to switch production is a plus to the game and should not be discarded.

[KoenigMKII]

As mentioned above, it is easy to produce Tigers in higher numbers than was possible historically.

It is not so much a cost per AFV problem, but a way too cheap (4) turn penalty to convert a factory from one equipment type to a grossly different type.

The new tiger factories are all low capacity and grow only slowly and are *not* the problem. Its the P-III or P-IV factories that a German player can change to tigers that produce the unrealistic antihistorical effect.

There is a similar problem converting early from Bomber factories to FW-190. For example, in 1941 as Germany converting the one He-111 factory to FW-190 gives you production of 26 FW's with just a (4) turn penalty.

I would say it should be possible to convert from different eqipment type to another, but to convert from bombers to fighters is a massive change which should incur a long time penalty. I would say 6 months (24 weeks) but after a slow ramp you should still get the 26 fighters in the end.

This change would force an axis player to hesitate before making massive changes. I think the excess tiger problem can be fixed easily this way too.

However, there are huge problems with the german OOB as the if the scenario goes to 1943/44/45. Its possible to have 7000 unsed Panthers if you are winning as the axis player, because the game still gives you the German *loosing* OOB.

Example, If the german front were on the entire Volga in summer/autumn 1943, more Pz Grenadier divisions would have become panzer, and more infantry divisions could have become motorised or panzer grenadier. Thoose tanks would not sit unused parked in germany, thats just mad!

The axis was so desparate for AFV's historically that captured T-34's were enthusiastically pressed into service against their former owners.

[pyguinard]

[/quote]

ORIGINAL: KoenigMKII

As mentioned above, it is easy to produce Tigers in higher numbers than was possible historically.

It is not so much a cost per AFV problem, but a way too cheap (4) turn penalty to convert a factory from one equipment type to a grossly different type.

The new tiger factories are all low capacity and grow only slowly and are *not* the problem. Its the P-III or P-IV factories that a German player can change to tigers that produce the unrealistic antihistorical effect.

There is a similar problem converting early from Bomber factories to FW-190. For example, in 1941 as Germany converting the one He-111 factory to FW-190 gives you production of 26 FW's with just a (4) turn penalty.

I would say it should be possible to convert from different eqipment type to another, but to convert from bombers to fighters is a massive change which should incur a long time penalty. I would say 6 months (24 weeks) but after a slow ramp you should still get the 26 fighters in the end.

This change would force an axis player to hesitate before making massive changes. I think the excess tiger problem can be fixed easily this way too.

I agree that changing production from one "weapon family" to another (ex.: from Pz III to Pz VI (Tigers)) should get more laborious and more time consuming than it is in the actual settings. However, how should we treat the conversion of weapons within the same family? Should switching production from PzKpfw III Ausf G to PzKpfw III Ausf J cost 24 turns?... or even 4 turns? And what about training?

To make it more realistic, the whole weapon conversion process would have to be revised to take better account of the degree of complexity that a factory conversion represents. It should also consider the amount of obsolete weapon available in the pool (like PzKpfw II that may be converted into Marder II or PzKpfw 38(t) into Marder III etc...) .... but what about captured tanks?

My point is that just adding delays to factory conversion is not a good short term solution as it implies a lot more than just changing a few parameters here and there; the whole process has to be reprogrammed to become somewhat accurate. The easy way would be to adjust the cost of production and, in the case of Tigers, maybe a readiness penalty could address the lack of reliability of these "new" sophisticated tanks were plagued with...!?

[Morphy]

ORIGINAL: pyguinard
To make it more realistic, the whole weapon conversion process would have to be revised to take better account of the degree of complexity that a factory conversion represents. It should also consider the amount of obsolete weapon available in the pool (like PzKpfw II that may be converted into Marder II or PzKpfw 38(t) into Marder III etc...) .... but what about captured tanks?

I'm not sure but I think some equipment is turned into another in WiR 3.3. I read somewhere details and it works like that: some percent (25-50) of old tanks/anti-tanks are turned into newer models. But I can't remember any more particulars...

[pyguinard]

ORIGINAL: Morphy


I'm not sure but I think some equipment is turned into another in WiR 3.3. I read somewhere details and it works like that: some percent (25-50) of old tanks/anti-tanks are turned into newer models. But I can't remember any more particulars...

You are right, I forgot about this. The Editwir.txt says:

[font="Courier New"]Every week starting in January 43:

1/4 of the KV-II pool turn into Su-152.

1/4 of the old T-37, T-60, T-70, T-26, BT-5, and BT-7 pools turn
into Su-76.

1/4 of the T-35, KV-1, KV-1E pools turn into KV-1S.

1/4 of the T-28 and T-34 M40 pools turn into T-34 M43 (before
August '43) or Su-85 (after August '43).

1/4 of the Stug-IIIB pool turns into Stug-IIIG.

1/4 of the Pz-II, R35, Pz38, Pz-38(e) pools turn into Marder III.

1/4 of the Pz-III(f-j) pools turn into Pz-IIIm.

1/4 of the Pz-IV(d-g) pools turn into Pz-IVh.

1/4 of the Elefant pool turns into Jagdtiger.

1/4 of the Marder III pool turns into Hetzer.

1/4 of the M13/40 and M15/42 pools turn into Marder III.
[/font]

[Morphy]

To be precise:

Every week starting in April '43:

1/4 of the KV-1S pool turns into ISU-122.