Assault HQ's (no new games for me until addressed)

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

...

But I feel there is way more than that - Cameron made interesting points elsewhere (Which I share for the most).

The general vibe I've to the game is that it is soaked with a Pro-Soviet mindset, by a huge and far shot presently.

Which to me is simply alienating to the game.

can we please avoid this sort of comment - there is no pro-Soviet bias to the game design by intent. The game does (clearly to the frustration of some of the more pro-Axis players) seek to realistically model the logistical constraints that were the core of the German problems in 1941.

as elsewhere, if you understand the logistics system you can actually side-step this.

what I think it does (accidently) is overstate Soviet C3 in 1941 - and as frequently in this thread either by patch or player consent I'd simply remove assault fronts for all or most of 1941.

I also find a lot of comments from those most keen to state the game is broken/wrong/biased that often indicate simply not understanding the rather complex rules

[malyhin1517]

ORIGINAL: guctony

ORIGINAL: malyhin1517

ORIGINAL: glenhope
This. The Soviets were incompetent in '41. It was logistics that held up the invasion, not the Russians.

I disagree with you! For example, according to the plan, only a few hours were allotted to the destruction of the border guards, but many border posts held out for several days and retreated only by order. Similarly, German plans to capture many key points were thwarted. A large number of unforeseen delays in the implementation of the Barbarossa plan led to the fact that instead of a quick defeat of the Red Army in the summer, the Germans had to fight in the fall and winter, when they had problems with supplies. If it were not for the heroic resistance of the perishing in the encirclement of Soviet troops, the Germans would have fulfilled the Barbarossa plan on time and no problems with supplies and General Frost would have been terrible for them! According to the plan, in winter, German troops were to return to Germany, and not freeze without warm clothing near Moscow! Before the start of the war, no one thought that the war in Russia would drag on so long!

I am sure He meant the incompetent leaders and high command because of the purges. I personally think the patriotism of soviet/Slav foot soldier is/was never under questioning. But for a certain period of time the leadership was.

I want to say that the Germans had problems with logistics because they did not expect to face such fierce resistance from the Soviet troops! According to the plan, the main forces of the Red Army were to be destroyed on the border, and there should be no further serious battles, so no one calculated the resources necessary for the army. I personally do not think that the Soviet generals made many mistakes, they just did not have time to respond to the rapid advance of German tank wedges, and the Soviet mechanized corps were mostly incapable of combat. And there is no need to blame General Moroz and bad Russian roads for Germany's loss! The Russians fought in the same conditions. The Germans were simply unprepared for such conditions of war. Germany lost because it underestimated the enemy, the German leadership spoke about this directly later.

[ncc1701e]

The more complex a game, the more difficult it is to balance. Patience is required. [:)]

[Zemke]

malyhin1517

I want to say that the Germans had problems with logistics because they did not expect to face such fierce resistance from the Soviet troops! According to the plan, the main forces of the Red Army were to be destroyed on the border, and there should be no further serious battles, so no one calculated the resources necessary for the army. I personally do not think that the Soviet generals made many mistakes, they just did not have time to respond to the rapid advance of German tank wedges, and the Soviet mechanized corps were mostly incapable of combat. And there is no need to blame General Moroz and bad Russian roads for Germany's loss! The Russians fought in the same conditions. The Germans were simply unprepared for such conditions of war. Germany lost because it underestimated the enemy, the German leadership spoke about this directly later.
[/quote]

The facts are little more subtle than this. The German General Staff (GGS) did predict the logistical limits of the German Army (Heer). You are correct that the expectation was the war would be won in the first month, by destroying the vast majority of the Soviet Army from the border to 350 km into the interior, which is exactly what happened. What was NOT expected or planned for was the Soviet Union's ability to generate new forces again and again. These new units that were not particularly well trained or lead, but dug in, they were good enough.

I agree the both sides had to contend with the same weather conditions, but it is a lot easier for the Soviets in 41 to bring fuel, ammo, food and replacements from the rail yards of Moscow, than Berlin in October of 41.

What I think was brilliant of the senior Soviet leadership, mostly because of the timing, (and this is a credit to Zhukov) was when they launched their winter offensive, although they got a little carried away with it by the end of February 42, and should have stopped and been satisfied with their gains, but Stalin got greedy and pushed for more, and ended up losing hundreds of thousands of men needlessly. I guess melomaniac personalities (Stalin and Hitler) have trouble accepting good advice.

I would also say that the Soviet soldiers in the border regions surrendered more often than they fought to the bitter end, (exceptions noted). I think the reason you see the fierce resistance increase as the Summer of 41 goes into Fall the average Soviet Soldier hears what is happening to their fellow countrymen in the German prison of war camps, (starved to death), and as word spreads how badly the Germans were treating prisoners and the the civilian population, I am not surprised most of them chose to die in combat by fight bitterly to the end.

[Zemke]

Anyway, back to the topic.

Assault HQ are the problem, fix the number the Soviets get at the start, I think is a good solution and an easy one.

If the designers want a more realistic game, and stop the "Sir Robin" retreat, I think implementing some random method that would slow or stop a certain random percentage of Soviet forces from being able to move at all or very much during the first 2 turns. This would balance the game more by implementing a solution based on history, because many Soviet units did not withdrawn for different reasons, either they never received the order to do so, or were executing pre-war plans to counter attack when they could not get through to higher HQ, or they simply were paralyzed by indecision based on rumors and the unknown and fear of making a mistake.

Read Constantine Pleshokov book, "STALIN'S FOLLY, The Tragic First Ten Days of WW II on the EASTERN FRONT". printed by Houghton Mifflin Co, NYC, NY copyright 2005

[jubjub]

ORIGINAL: Zemke

Anyway, back to the topic.

Assault HQ are the problem, fix the number the Soviets get at the start, I think is a good solution and an easy one.

If the designers want a more realistic game, and stop the "Sir Robin" retreat, I think implementing some random method that would slow or stop a certain random percentage of Soviet forces from being able to move at all or very much during the first 2 turns. This would balance the game more by implementing a solution based on history, because many Soviet units did not withdrawn for different reasons, either they never received the order to do so, or were executing pre-war plans to counter attack when they could not get through to higher HQ, or they simply were paralyzed by indecision based on rumors and the unknown and fear of making a mistake.

Read Constantine Pleshokov book, "STALIN'S FOLLY, The Tragic First Ten Days of WW II on the EASTERN FRONT". printed by Houghton Mifflin Co, NYC, NY copyright 2005

that or give the soviets a 30 minute timer to complete their turn lol

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Zemke

Anyway, back to the topic.

Assault HQ are the problem, fix the number the Soviets get at the start, I think is a good solution and an easy one.

If the designers want a more realistic game, and stop the "Sir Robin" retreat, I think implementing some random method that would slow or stop a certain random percentage of Soviet forces from being able to move at all or very much during the first 2 turns. This would balance the game more by implementing a solution based on history, because many Soviet units did not withdrawn for different reasons, either they never received the order to do so, or were executing pre-war plans to counter attack when they could not get through to higher HQ, or they simply were paralyzed by indecision based on rumors and the unknown and fear of making a mistake.

Read Constantine Pleshokov book, "STALIN'S FOLLY, The Tragic First Ten Days of WW II on the EASTERN FRONT". printed by Houghton Mifflin Co, NYC, NY copyright 2005

And what's your proposal to force the same foolishness on the Axis. Why do you want to force the Soviets to play the way you want, yet let the Axis do what you want?

A more realistic game????

[Zemke]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Zemke

Anyway, back to the topic.

Assault HQ are the problem, fix the number the Soviets get at the start, I think is a good solution and an easy one.

If the designers want a more realistic game, and stop the "Sir Robin" retreat, I think implementing some random method that would slow or stop a certain random percentage of Soviet forces from being able to move at all or very much during the first 2 turns. This would balance the game more by implementing a solution based on history, because many Soviet units did not withdrawn for different reasons, either they never received the order to do so, or were executing pre-war plans to counter attack when they could not get through to higher HQ, or they simply were paralyzed by indecision based on rumors and the unknown and fear of making a mistake.

Read Constantine Pleshokov book, "STALIN'S FOLLY, The Tragic First Ten Days of WW II on the EASTERN FRONT". printed by Houghton Mifflin Co, NYC, NY copyright 2005

And what's your proposal to force the same foolishness on the Axis. Why do you want to force the Soviets to play the way you want, yet let the Axis do what you want?

A more realistic game????

Why do you say "foolishness".

No one is forcing anyone to play any certain way. Only making adjustments that balance the game which are based in history facts.

What changes would you make for the Germans based on historical precedent that would add balance to the game?

Another very easy change would be to the victory locations and / or the points awarded for victory locations. This change could be made with zero impact on other game mechanics.

[Zemke]

To think there will be no changes at all or little to WitE2, is "foolishness". WitE1 went through so many changes trying to balance and adjust, too many to count. The relatively small sample size of the testers got the game out. Now it is in real testing and as games come in, we will see what the tread is.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Zemke

Anyway, back to the topic.

Assault HQ are the problem, fix the number the Soviets get at the start, I think is a good solution and an easy one.

If the designers want a more realistic game, and stop the "Sir Robin" retreat, I think implementing some random method that would slow or stop a certain random percentage of Soviet forces from being able to move at all or very much during the first 2 turns. This would balance the game more by implementing a solution based on history, because many Soviet units did not withdrawn for different reasons, either they never received the order to do so, or were executing pre-war plans to counter attack when they could not get through to higher HQ, or they simply were paralyzed by indecision based on rumors and the unknown and fear of making a mistake.

Read Constantine Pleshokov book, "STALIN'S FOLLY, The Tragic First Ten Days of WW II on the EASTERN FRONT". printed by Houghton Mifflin Co, NYC, NY copyright 2005

And what's your proposal to force the same foolishness on the Axis. Why do you want to force the Soviets to play the way you want, yet let the Axis do what you want?

A more realistic game????

As loki said earlier in the thread, the 'sweet spot' is one where neither side feels comfortable. So the attacking side (whether it be Axis in 41/42 or the Soviets in 43/44) feel they have to overstretch and attack faster than they would comfortably like and in turn the defending side feels they have to defend further forward than they would choose given a free hand.

So it's not so much forcing players to make the same mistakes as the leaders of either side made historically, more a matter of putting players on both sides in positions where they have to make 'hard choices' so that they will potentially make mistakes in those decisions.

At the moment it seems as if the Soviet side in 41 are not being presented with enough difficult decisions. A Soviet player should be free to choose to retreat faster than historically but that choice should have the consequence of them facing a November offensive on Leningrad/Moscow/Rostov that could lead to them losing the game via a 41 auto victory (and by the same measure the Axis player in that situation should be faced with the hard decision of choosing whether to go 'all in' on that offensive to chase an auto victory in the knowledge that if it doesn't come off they are going to get a very bloody nose through the blizzard). Based on what we have seen from the AARs that is not the case - a Soviet player can retreat through 41 safe in the knowledge that they are always going to be able to stop the Axis well short of AV and go into winter 41/42 and subsequently the 1942 campaigning season with a much bigger and coherent army than was historically the case.

Just as a game that is 'railroaded' to the historical outcomes is not much fun, a game where the balancing is off so that one side can follow the same tactic every game and at least avoid defeat every time is not much fun either.

Practically I would go step by step in the balancing till we get the desired outcome as described above:
1) Take away the command capacity bonus from the Assault Fronts and remove 1 AF from the Soviets in 41.
2) Take away the other AF from the Soviets and only give them their first one in December 41
3) Look at the victory conditions and more specifically consider moving the current October Axis AV date to the beginning of December at a level that is equivalent to the loss of one of Leningrad/Moscow/Rostov and plenty of time bonuses for the 'intermediate' victory locations elsewhere.

[AlbertN]

Presently to me the issue is well beyond just assault fronts.

In the 2 games I stopped to bring forward, both opponents said they are using either no Assault HQ or one; and still in T3 or T4 Panzer Divisions got pummelled into submission.
In a game, thus, certainly without Assault HQ.

But the crux here is how smooth the Soviets (or in general a side using Admin Movement) have it to close the distance with the needed units, launch a deliberate attack and then return to safer locations.
Thus I feel there is another issue lingering - related to Admin Movement and how it is handled.

There can be lots of things to tinker about, from making Admin Movement different, based in terms of Morale to determine the cost of hexes or accrue that some to differentiate operational levels.
The MP cost of attacks can change as well from Germans to Soviets. (In general Soviets are more cumbersome in organizing and launching attacks doctrine wise)
MP mins / max can be changed as well to make a faction less nimble, etc.

It's a list of possibilities and options. As it is now I do not think just Assault HQ suffice in terms of rebalancing.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

Presently to me the issue is well beyond just assault fronts.

In the 2 games I stopped to bring forward, both opponents said they are using either no Assault HQ or one; and still in T3 or T4 Panzer Divisions got pummelled into submission.
In a game, thus, certainly without Assault HQ.

But the crux here is how smooth the Soviets (or in general a side using Admin Movement) have it to close the distance with the needed units, launch a deliberate attack and then return to safer locations.
Thus I feel there is another issue lingering - related to Admin Movement and how it is handled.

There can be lots of things to tinker about, from making Admin Movement different, based in terms of Morale to determine the cost of hexes or accrue that some to differentiate operational levels.
The MP cost of attacks can change as well from Germans to Soviets. (In general Soviets are more cumbersome in organizing and launching attacks doctrine wise)
MP mins / max can be changed as well to make a faction less nimble, etc.

It's a list of possibilities and options. As it is now I do not think just Assault HQ suffice in terms of rebalancing.

You know you can easily stop admin movement, so that can be solved.

In a recent game I deliberately tested this by laying down broad, weak patches of interdiction around where I estimated my spearheads would reach, and yep, my opponent suddenly faced the dilemna of attack and die as they then couldn't retreat.

So use the relevant air mission and in clear terrain this problem can be readily solved [;)]

[chrispanton]

For me part of the root of the problem is that assaultHQs are too big at 45, but if they were 27 there are not enough Armys in the Axis OOB to control all the units realistically. Wouldn't 40cp (x1.5 rounded down) go at least a way towards a solution. 20 divisions in 4 or 5 corps doesn't seem too much of a reality stretch, less if broken down into regimental KGs. In terms of magic increase in command and control that is mentioned above it feels more like the AP paid gives a reflection of a bigger staff allocation and an increased willingness to break down mobile units into KGs, but 5cp less does make the axis think a bit harder about how many units can be broken down. Seems at the moment too easy to spam regiments in many directions.

Also I feel like while a one off AP cost to create an Assault HQ is one thing, but perhaps an ongoing AP cost each turn makes it less of a no brainer to keep on the assault forever. Both sides seem to swim in APs before long anyway.

[TallBlondJohn]

ORIGINAL: Zemke

Anyway, back to the topic.

Assault HQ are the problem, fix the number the Soviets get at the start, I think is a good solution and an easy one.

If the designers want a more realistic game, and stop the "Sir Robin" retreat, I think implementing some random method that would slow or stop a certain random percentage of Soviet forces from being able to move at all or very much during the first 2 turns. This would balance the game more by implementing a solution based on history, because many Soviet units did not withdrawn for different reasons, either they never received the order to do so, or were executing pre-war plans to counter attack when they could not get through to higher HQ, or they simply were paralyzed by indecision based on rumors and the unknown and fear of making a mistake.

Read Constantine Pleshokov book, "STALIN'S FOLLY, The Tragic First Ten Days of WW II on the EASTERN FRONT". printed by Houghton Mifflin Co, NYC, NY copyright 2005

Can't see this being implemented, but one way would be to link soviet T1 and T2 movement points to a command roll, but make it a game option. It would make things more fun, but to be fair you would then have to have a similar strategic command roll for the Germans once they get past Smolensk to simulate OKH dithering. Basically you can't design hindsight out of the game, but players can agree house rules to explore history.

[AlbertN]

@Loki I myself posted earlier about Interdiction.

That does not stop Admin Movement but increases the cost for the hex, and it requires lots of interdiction to increase non motorized movement.

Besides that - sorry but one cannot predict where their spearheads will be. Twicefold so before Recon.

Next, your unescorted bombers will be minced by any I153 biplane lurking around.

Unless you expect your Panzer spearheads advancing so far that they're in Bf109 air cover. In this case there is not a grand advance, considering rarely your fighter airfield is just where your 'start of the turn' spearhead is.

___

Then I believe in WITE1 the Soviets had some movement penalty on their T1, but I could remember wrong.

There are many games that mirror a state of surprise, hindering the surprised faction movement and capabilities in the first turn / impulse / pulse (Whatever the call 'turn'). - Some Pacific games have a 'Pre-Turn' at the beginning where only the Japanese player plays a limited amount of action (Tabletop games though) to represent their opening moves.

Would that be helping? I do not think it would help loads - even if it would surely help some in a historical capture of Smolensk if the Soviets cannot have an immediate surge of troops right there, and other details.

Current T1 for Soviet end is pretty much having hindsight of the war, of where the enemy will go, have all your trains immediately at hand and where needed, etc.

But a T1 'help' is a palliative to longer term issues.

[loki100]

it does - see the movement rules.

well its an art, I did a good job in my test, of 3 spreads only one was actually not particularly relevant

do you really think any airforce in 1941 had on demand air cover? They set up likely flight plans and used them. The British were just starting to get the idea of the taxi cab model in N Africa that Tactical Air then refined in Italy and used to devastating effect in France - it took 3 years to get there (& by 1944 helped by a certain degree of redundancy in the amount of airpower they had to hand)

[AlbertN]

Luftwaffe at tactical level had flight sweeps, and Stuka carousels in the air - they were bound to be called for action by this or that formation.
They had that in France already. - Given less space there.

The problem is how that pans out in game mechanics.

For Ground Support, click the button, and you have it if planes are in range. Anywhere you are. On the spot.
But one cannot command at the end of the turn 'interdict there'. In front of where you are or so.

Does the game needs another Air Directive phase after the Ground Movement? OR could it benefit from it?

[MechFO]

Assault HQ's and CPP are good and IMO necessary additions to WITE2.

Preparation and "stance" is important, one of the oddities of the WITE IGOUGO system has always been the ability to plan and execute both offensive and defensive actions simultaneously whereas it is normally a choice. If your recon, planning and preparation is geared for an attack, you are postponing and sacrificing your defence.

That said, I do think CPP as now suffers from some oddities.
1. a doubling of combat power and full capacity is probably excessive, I assume this came about to deal with the very strong defences that can be constructed in the WITE system.
2. It is too easy to carry CPP, movement losses should IMO be heavily increased. A lot of the value of preparation comes from detailed recon of local forces and terrain. This can not be carried around with you.
3. CPP growth should be more heavily dependent on leadership rolls or unit XP and even should arguably be capped morale threshold. A bad staff is going to turn out bad attack plans, no matter how much time it has.

As to Assault HQ's.
I too am of the opinion that the extra command capacity is excessive. IMO leave the number of Assault HQ's as they are now, but give them normal command limits, at most a small bonus. The massive increase takes away the rationing of leaders and support units that IMO adds to the game. That said, one should also consider allowing the player to build HQ's. HQ staff were not unobtanium but created based on need. HQ command limits IMO should mainly serve to ration good leaders and create tradeoffs for SU assignment.

[Zebtucker12]

Maybe add the bonus just to armies and corps under the assault hq front and not bonus cp to the front.
And only give soviets the frist one in december 1941.
I think this is a good start also buff axis minors.

[Zemke]

Well playing the Russians seems very easy right now. Assault HQ covering Leningrad, Assault HQ covering Moscow, retreat in the south just out of reach of the Germans. Make the Germans attack and bleed on Leningrad and Moscow fronts, and there you have it. The risk of encirclement at Leningrad or Moscow areas, is present but not huge. The terrain is just brutal to attack into very much favoring the defender. So I ask Loki how does one combat that? I mean it feels like you cannot, unless you play a perfect game, and have some luck. Against a decent to average Russian player I do not see how the Germans get to historical Russian casualties in 41.