Should I visit this forum any more ??

[Skanvak]

ORIGINAL: Lanconic

ORIGINAL: alfonso

ORIGINAL: Lanconic




Without defining what 50%/50% means, that is hard to answer.
Between April and June of 1943 I see no significant Red Army drives.

In terms of Grand Strategy, things were still bad for the Germans.

It would be an interesting scenario to postulate a Soviet offensive in the teeth of a
full strength German panzer force.

My definition of 50%/50% is as follows:

Germany (and allied nations) had A% of probabilities of winning the war.
The Soviet Union (and allied nations) had B% of probabilities of winning the war.

and then, A=B

There could be a draw, defined by C%=100-A-B

(But perhaps when you mentioned a draw, you were referring to a "temporary" draw...?)

By that definition, the day the USA entered the war, ALL the Axis nations should have surrendered

The Axis had NO CHANCE of winning. NONE. Not even if they had managed to get nukes.

The draw I meant was forcing the enemy to stop trying to hurt you.

Reading Clauswitcz you should know that Victory in a war is political. So it highly depend on what one side want to acheive and the WILL to fight of the other side. USA have a weak will to fight generally except in WWII, but at this time the Axis power didn't know that nor guess that. The UK might have sue for peace in 1940, that was a narrow thing. The Soviet Union was defenitly wanting peace in 1941 and 1942 but it looks it never sur for it and was never presented with a peace offer.

So if you speak of relative victory, the Reich was pretty able to have peace with Russian (Russia lose) then turn all their army toward the USA and UK and acheive peace. Just that was not their agenda. There Agenda was World conquest or fight until total annihilation...This could not be acheive.

So which way we go? What-if negociation possibility? or for the real thing?

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: Lanconic

(a) By that definition, the day the USA entered the war, ALL the Axis nations should have surrendered

(b) The Axis had NO CHANCE of winning. NONE. Not even if they had managed to get nukes.

(c) The draw I meant was forcing the enemy to stop trying to hurt you.

a. I agree, but in reality it was Germany that declared war on USA. A mistake, IMHO.

b. I agree, although for those who do not like 0% and 100%, we could say "less than 10%" chance of winning the war?

c. I think it would be interesting to try an early switch of the Axis to a defensive role. So bye bye CITADEL, and maybe even bye bye BLAU. Perhaps the casualties inflicted upon the attacking Red Army could be enough to keep intact the sacred soil of Germany ?? (until the nuclear mushrooms show their ugly faces).

Seen in perspective, the idea of fighting against USA, URSS and the British Empire does not seem very sound. Even if you are allied with Italy, Hungary and Romania...or Japan outside WITE.

And finally, a wargame can be total fun in spite of one of the sides being doomed from the outset. You win if you are simply crushed, instead of utterly crushed...

[bevans]

The game prides itself on historical reality but the first winter is ahistoric; e.g., the Germans took a couple of months to relieve the Demyansk pocket. How long would such a pocket last in WitE? How effective would the actual German defense strategy be in WitE? the answers are 'not long' and 'really bad'. That might be acceptable if the Germans could actually recover from it - but the (steeply) downward sloping TOEs (starting in '43) and inability to go to a war economy makes that very difficult. I suspect that the next firestorm will be late war German TOEs - but no one has gotten close to those dates. TOEs should be tied to historical events (e.g. the SU gets a 1000 pts of CV across the Dnepr, then Vistula or start line, say), they should not be forced on the Axis player regardless of actual game status. This, way more than the first winter rules, is the worst design decision the developers made. (This is tied to the equally flawed decision that TOEs need to be changed in the generic files; the '44 scenario should be played with historic '44 TOEs, but one shouldn't be forced to play with them in the GC. But mod them for the GC and they are modded for all the scenarios. Dumb, dumb, dumb).

I do believe the Germans can 'win' (and I fully accept that 'not losing' is a synonym for 'winning') even as late as '43. Guderian wanted no offensive action until '44 when the Pz Divs would be restored to full strength, with Mk IVs (long barrelled) and Panthers, some Tigers, JPIVs. etc. The Germans lost their ability to fight a mobile battle in the Russian defenses at Kursk; and they were always going to lose a war of attrition. The interesting thing is that I believe the Germans have a better chance of 'winning' if they start in '43, not '41, which I would argue is not 'correct'. I can, and have, modded the TOEs and production limits (and upgraded the SU as well, otherwise I feel I am just cheating. However giving the Germans an extra 40 AFVs per week might make a huge difference; the same number for the SU would be lost in the production noise.). I can't do squat about the first winter rules however - and nor can anyone else, which is why this issue has become the - deserved - lightning rod for criticism of the game. I find it difficult to believe that more than a handful of people purchased this game with the intent not to play the GC. If the fun stops at around turn 25, then some unhappiness is to be expected. So my brilliant plan for the blizzards in '41? The python defense, as in Monty, as in The Holy Grail (i.e. run away before they can taunt me again). Really ahistoric but I am very interested in seeing whether one is better off starting somewhere East of the Dnepr (one presumes, but not guaranteed) with a ravaged Wehrmacht or on the 54/72 Line (west of which winters become balmy and almost pleasant), with an attempt to hold Riga and Tallinn and a more or less intact Wehrmacht.

[Adnan Meshuggi]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: alfonso
EDIT: in addition, I don't understand why fighting around Kursk in 1945 is funnier than fighting around Berlin in 1945.

Alfonso, it is not "funnier" because I am starting to suspect that quite many people on these forums believe Germany should have won in the Eastern Front. Only IF... [:D]

In the WitP forum these people are rara avis though: imagine a "Japan should be able to invade the West Coast and force the Americans to surrender". In the aformentioned forum this would sound like the words of a lunatic, believe me.

They simply don't want to see the FACTS. After the catastrophic blizzard the Germans only managed to perform a LIMITED offensive in the south. And to do so they had to literally scrap the barrel: minor Axis Allies covering the flanks of the advancing German armies (which of course led to the 6th Army disaster), men from the AGN and AGC were needed... And we are talking about the 1942 year [X(] If this does NOT prove this war was too much for the Germans then boy... Only a German fanboyism may explain it! [8D]

It has already been said ad nauseam. A German "victory" is the Soviets at let's say 10 hexes of Berlin at the end of the scenario or something like that (Berlin not captured that is). Oh well... [:D]

Well, name the players who said that a west-coast-landing could be realistic...

THe question what is fun is silly and stupid. some people like to be whipped... so who are we to define "fun".
But the question in this game is - should the german player have NO chance to do better (this is the "kursk45" (even if i think that would be to good for a balanced game hvh) example you wrote about) . these guys ar as single minded as the people who belive the germans could have beaten the russians in a way that they had surrendered.
Both things are silly. We know today, that this chance did not exist - the time for such a sucsess is to short. But for gameplay - a good german player should reach end of the map in 1942, if he played a brilliand 41 against an average russian player.
Why? because the things weren´t so clear in the eastern war as some (uninformed) people belive.
Germany had lost the war any way - cause they couldn´t handle the western allies and the russians. Even with a not so cruel behaviour against the conquered areas.

But the germans should have the chance to beat the russians untill they are only a weak defence army (so they could theoretically withdraw a lot troops) in a human vers. human-game, if they play brilliant.
The game works in a way, that the german defence of 1943 and 44 (until june) could not be simulated. Numbers count. In any game more as in historical battles.

The facts about the blizzard are, that exhausted germans hold mostly against exhausted russians, a lot of them (germans and russians) died by frost.
With proper defence, less exhausting and a intelligent plan what the germans wanted to reach (instead of the terrible chaos of german plans), they could have eaten alive any russian attacks - i bet the russians hadn´t even attacked. That is the problem of the game.
Good shaped german divisions could kill nearly all russian attacks (cause numbers doesn´t work if you have not the ability to attack in the needed way (the russians learned it, but even in 44 they were inferior in modern warfare, they just had the numbers and they had also hitler. (at last true untill bagriation - after that, the russians were superior).

so i still wait for the "evidences" that any german player has only the chance to do as best as the history if he avoid the mistakes.
Nobody has any problems with the fact, that the russian player can avoid any russian mistake without any consequences. why?

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

Cause the russian rush to berlin isn´t as clear as it seems.
If the only chance for german side is to reach such a result (and i doubt that even this could be possible in the moment, cause the mechanismen prefer "overhelming attacks") you describe, there is no fun for playing both sides in a gc

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

THe question what is fun is silly and stupid. some people like to be whipped... so who are we to define "fun"

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi
Well, name the players who said that a west-coast-landing could be realistic...

That's precisely my point. Er, no one dared say that on the WitP forum. We ALL are polite (no insults) but that hypothetical person would have been the target of some er sarcasm...

Adnan, sure a German player might do better than history [:)] We're simple players, not Manstein, Zhukov, etc. But a competent player vs a competent player... IF the game is well designed the Germans should get some the 100% of the time [;)] AND I am pretty certain this game IS incredibly well made (bugs or some other problems? Of course there are). 2by3, Matrix don't deceive (already learned that from WitP)...

I mean, these are NOT casual games aka science-fiction games in which the German or Soviet hordes get some extra lasers, Klingon Allies and other funny stuff. They are LITERALLY supposed to emulate what happened in the real world.

[Adnan Meshuggi]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi
Well, name the players who said that a west-coast-landing could be realistic...

That's precisely my point. Er, no one dared say that on the WitP forum. We ALL are polite (no insults) but that hypothetical person would have been the target of some er sarcasm...

Adnan, sure a German player might do better than history [:)] We're simple players, not Manstein, Zhukov, etc. But a competent player vs a competent player... IF the game is well designed the Germans should get some the 100% of the time [;)] AND I am pretty certain this game IS incredibly well made (bugs or some other problems? Of course there are). 2by3, Matrix don't deceive (already learned that from WitP)...

I mean, these are NOT casual games aka science-fiction games in which the German or Soviet hordes get some extra lasers, Klingon Allies and other funny stuff. They are LITERALLY supposed to emulate what happened in the real world.

We agree that we disagree...

basically you say, that if two compent players fight, the german/axis allways loose.

In the moment we have the blizzard-thing with the result that even excellent axis player loose against average/bad (no offense in this) russian player.

I disagree with the first but even more with the secont.
"winning" for the axis side is just to stop the russians far east of historical lines. We do not speak about "german tanks conquer eastern Siberia"

And knowing some things about ww2 i know that the russian victory was not so sure or easy as many people here think.

Winter-41, the blizzardproblem is measured with historical comparisations... true. With a fully exhausted russian army, supported by fresh troops managed to throw back the germans for a few kilometers, in some places more, in others less.

In the moment the russian can easily avoid the historical failures (i agree, this should be possible), but the german can not. Even if beeing far better as the historical lines, his army get crushed.
Why? because some people belive, that this has to happen.
The same people ignore fully, that the russian army was largely even less equipped as the german army. That caused a lot dead russian soldiers, they die by frostbite...

In the game? every russian is a sibirian winterized soldier.
So the game has the effect that by avoiding the russian mistakes a much larger russian army with much better equippment as they hat in rl can destroy easily any german army.

Sorry, if this is the goal of the game, it is really useless.


The biggest problem is, that 2by3 try to emulate what happened.
But if they do it with winter, they need to force the russian side to "hold the border", otherwise they recive zero new troops (as an extreme example)
If you try to simulate it, why should the army do franatic strenghbuilding, if the goal of the army is to avoid combat. so the russians do not know, that they are in the moment far inferior to the german attackers.

You get the point? The game should manage to simulate historical combat results... if in bagriation one single german division can hold against 3 guard tank armies, something is wrong.

But to force the player by hardcoded elements to half your combat strengh, based on the historical fact that exhaustet german units, fully at the end of supply and ammo, had to retreat against a good positioned russian attack is utterly wrong.

My suggestion is, the game should give both sides the chance to do better, Better say that even if both sides are well lead, both sides can achive great sucsesses... so if a good german player achive huge sucsess in 41 with low losses he can do so good, that the russian player (also a good player) is happy to reach the polish border at the end of the game
And yes, i suggest also that this should happen not in 1 of 100000 times but 1of 10

The other side need also improvements. So should 1 of 10 russians be able to crush the german frontline like it happen regulary in the moment in 41. With this huge damage the russian can defeat the germans in such a way, that they can reach berlin much earlier (say D-Day, even with far more german troops freed for the eastern front

[morganbj]

I too am convinced that the Germans could have won the war. Sure, expecting panzers to reach Vladivostok and Washington DC is far fetched, but I think that if the soviets were stretched to the breaking point a politcal accomodation might have been possible. Given the brutality of the German "liberators," I believe that total and complete surrender was a little out of the question. While it may have been technically possible, I think that the guerrilla war that followed would have tied up vast German resources for a very, very long time. And, I think that Soviet surrender was quite remote anyway, if possible at all.

But, I think that a cessation of major hostilities might have been possible, for at least a few years, with the Germans having "liberated" the Baltic states, and perhaps Ukraine. Perhaps after an armistice of some kind. And yes, I know that Hitler was a nut and would have kept fighting forever to free the world of the "untermensch," but even he was politically cunning enough to believe that he could gobble up major parts of the USSR, call an armistice, take out the Western Allies, and then have another go at the Soviets. Would he? I doubt it, but maybe. After a few years, the Soviets would have recovered, built up a very significant force, and about the time the Western Allies were ready to make their move, I believe that the Soviets might have joined in again. That, I think, could actually have happened had the Germans been more successful.

The point is, though, who the hell knows? We are all speculating. Who would have thought in 1939 that the French would have surrendered, formed a Vichy government, and actually fired on Allied troops a few years later? The people in the forums of the days (the local drinking establishments) would have called someone who suggested that in 1939 an idiot, a fool, not understanding the real world. They would have given him the green button (a physical extraction from the bar).

What the game should provide is for the Germans to have the opportunity to get to a point where the Soviets are "defeated." What that means can be argued. As it is now, it seems that German victory is losing a little less big that they did historically. As we say here in Texas, whoop-de-do. The Germans should also have a reasonable chance to do much better, to hurt the Soviets so badly that the War in the East is "won" by the Germans, so that large numbers of troops can shift to other theatres. If for no other reason that to keep the game fun for those who want to play the German side. Does that mean that they must be able to overrun all of the USSR? Of course not. Just hurt them bad enough that one of the situations I suggest above can result.

I have to say, though, that every restart I do a little better as the Germans (yes, against the AI). I can actually survive the first winter in decent shape and take good ground in 42. But, eventually the Soviets get too strong, I can't sustain my losses, and I start to lose ground. Hopefully I can keep from getting steamrolled, but that seems pretty difficult to avoid. But, I'm getting better. Once I can maximize every element of the game, perhaps what I suggest is possible. We'll see.

[VictorCharlie]

Bjmorgan makes a good point about 1939 and the France 40 campaign.

With hindsight you can say France could have won that by a strong armoured drive cutting off the German drive to the channel. They still had enough forces left to do that. But like a high stakes poker game the leadership believed the Germans, after a string of victories, to be unstoppable and so capitulated.

Now 1941 in Russia, suppose Leningrad and Moscow have fallen and Rostov and the Caucus are threatened. Wouldn’t the Soviet leadership be feeling about the same as the French? They have no idea of the Germans true strength, no hindsight and so could have been bluffed into some sort of peace/ceasefire deal.

[Skanvak]

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

I too am convinced that the Germans could have won the war. Sure, expecting panzers to reach Vladivostok and Washington DC is far fetched, but I think that if the soviets were stretched to the breaking point a politcal accomodation might have been possible. Given the brutality of the German "liberators," I believe that total and complete surrender was a little out of the question. While it may have been technically possible, I think that the guerrilla war that followed would have tied up vast German resources for a very, very long time. And, I think that Soviet surrender was quite remote anyway, if possible at all.

But, I think that a cessation of major hostilities might have been possible, for at least a few years, with the Germans having "liberated" the Baltic states, and perhaps Ukraine. Perhaps after an armistice of some kind. And yes, I know that Hitler was a nut and would have kept fighting forever to free the world of the "untermensch," but even he was politically cunning enough to believe that he could gobble up major parts of the USSR, call an armistice, take out the Western Allies, and then have another go at the Soviets. Would he? I doubt it, but maybe. After a few years, the Soviets would have recovered, built up a very significant force, and about the time the Western Allies were ready to make their move, I believe that the Soviets might have joined in again. That, I think, could actually have happened had the Germans been more successful.

The point is, though, who the hell knows? We are all speculating. Who would have thought in 1939 that the French would have surrendered, formed a Vichy government, and actually fired on Allied troops a few years later? The people in the forums of the days (the local drinking establishments) would have called someone who suggested that in 1939 an idiot, a fool, not understanding the real world. They would have given him the green button (a physical extraction from the bar).

What the game should provide is for the Germans to have the opportunity to get to a point where the Soviets are "defeated." What that means can be argued. As it is now, it seems that German victory is losing a little less big that they did historically. As we say here in Texas, whoop-de-do. The Germans should also have a reasonable chance to do much better, to hurt the Soviets so badly that the War in the East is "won" by the Germans, so that large numbers of troops can shift to other theatres. If for no other reason that to keep the game fun for those who want to play the German side. Does that mean that they must be able to overrun all of the USSR? Of course not. Just hurt them bad enough that one of the situations I suggest above can result.

I have to say, though, that every restart I do a little better as the Germans (yes, against the AI). I can actually survive the first winter in decent shape and take good ground in 42. But, eventually the Soviets get too strong, I can't sustain my losses, and I start to lose ground. Hopefully I can keep from getting steamrolled, but that seems pretty difficult to avoid. But, I'm getting better. Once I can maximize every element of the game, perhaps what I suggest is possible. We'll see.

Well technically what you say was indeed possible. Stalin was ready to offer Hitler any peace condition in during Barbarossa, and a separate peace for most time after (at least until 44).

The problem is the definition of victory. Victory is a politcal thing. If you consider that victory is the goal put by Hitler then you must try to exterminate all russian and hold with a reduce army. If you consider that victory is protecting the German people form the eastern communist threat (and hitler madness) then holding until the US reach Berlin is quite nice.

On the logic of the debate. This is a logic error to say that a good german could or not win the war in WitE. This is a simulation. Actual playing will tell us is this possible. The simulation is good if it can replicate history. If someone tell me the game is design so the german can do that and that at this time and that time, then this is not the kind of exploratory simulation I expected.