Is the game biased towards the Soviet side?

[tigercub]

yes when it comes out i will Restart for the last time i hope!

[delatbabel]

ORIGINAL: Encircled

16 AP to build forts + no motorised divisions into Static mode looks like the best the Russian player can do due to a massive shortage of AP points is just survive.

This might, (and I stress the word might) mean that the Russians take a lot longer (due to shortage of AP points) to sort out their army, which might result in a much weaker Soviet army in '42 than is currently the case.

Of course, the downside is that a lot of Russian players are going to get creamed in '41 and '42

However, this might well work, and if it results in backhand blows, massive sweeping encirclements and less moaning about the 1:1 rule, its got to be good!

Yes, the elimination of static mode in 1941 seems like the wrong solution to the right problem to me. Why not just eliminate the AP bonus for putting units into static mode, meaning that the trucks can still be recovered but the Soviets no longer have a pool of APs to build units in 1941? At the same time I would reduce the AP cost to activate a static unit, and increase the AP cost of building Soviet support units to stop masses of RR construction brigades being built in 1941?

It does bother me that a lot of Russian players are going to get creamed in '41 and '42. That was the case in WIR, where a lot of players had to introduce house rules to stop the Germans having an easy win, often by September 1941.

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Our games are no stranger to skeptical looks and strongly worded opinions. [:)] We seem to bring out the passion in wargamers (at least the grognards), and will hopefully continue to do so.

Your list of problems is long, which argues that we can't deal with everything on your list at once as there would be too many moving parts (and of course we don't agree with all your points and as you say many of the items were intentionally designed a certain way). I will say that the way that morale recovery is being done now, that German Motorized units can have their morale recover to as high as 90 (although it's not likely to go that high, and for infantry it could theoretically recover to 85 -- originally German units wouldn't recover past 75, although at some point recently tthat was changed to 85, but I'm not sure exactly when that was done). Only time and testing will show us whether this provides enough recovery after the first winter. As for the first winter, the lower Soviet recovery rate of disabled troops will help keep their army size down for the first winter, along with the lower manpower rate in early 42. Of course there are so many changes that we can't say yet exactly how things will work out, but we think the changes go a long way to improving 1942.

Thanks a lot for your reply and insights on morale. Just a few quick points for your consideration.
1. why are the German morale recovery topped at all? Isn't this something that could be left to player skill and as a variable to reward the player who manages to do better?
It's actually these things, which are scripted, that (it seems to me) most people have difficulty with.
2. Unfortunately you do not give your insights on which things on the list you consider candidates for review, which are done by design and which you disagree with. I realize anything you say can and will be used against you but as a counter arguement, it's been 9 months, maybe a bit of communication to let people know your point of view would certainly be appreciated by (I bet good money) many people currently feeling left in the dark.
3. I stand corrected on the new fort rules it seems. Although the big unknown is supply expenditure and how this will impact fort building. As you say, testing will provide the answers although this means a couple of months before we'll know either way.
It would be nice to hear how you perceive the supply factor will impact fort building for the Germans in late 1941. Will it be an important factor or will effects be minor?

Thanks!

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

ORIGINAL: jzardos
*KEY POINT*
- had the Germans used the rail capacity in early fall for winter prep stuff and not for resources to continue a late fall/winter offensive on Moscow, German units would have been in much better shape to handle the winter. But Hitler wanted to keep pushing for Moscow, even when most generals wanted to pause and prepare for winter.

Thus, if an axis player chooses to play more cautious and refrain from major offensives in Oct/Nov they should be able to gain some level of winter prep for their units. Just my opinion and seems to follow the historical flow of possibilities for an axis player.

The debate has never been that there were winter uniforms, but rather getting them there. The Germans did not use all all their supply transport for offensives (they didn't, actually - looking at the supply rates they were on a shoestring and offensives were rather stupid), they didn't have more than basic supply to spare at all.

The issue was how to rationalize the system so that it wasn't in continual crisis and such things as winter clothing could become part of the routine...

Given that supply is abstracted to a good extent now, such issues really don't have a place in the game, unless there is a release of the "Rails East!" expansion.

I beg to differ. The Germans are going to be hit by the blizzard wherever they end 1941. Be that West of the Dnepr in great supply or East of Moscow is bad supply.
It's the scripting of these events that the OP has issue with. In fact, this is one of these by design decisions clearly aimed at bringing down the whermachts quality and you can do very little to nothing to change that as the Axis. The arguement that Hitler si calling the shots and you have to follow orders is just not valid. It's up to the player to decide where he will strike, when and with which troops. Hitler can just f**ck off [:D]
Just like the Soviet can decide to stand or run away or a combination of both.
To be clear, first winter has to give the Russian some sort of advantage, preferably a big one. The big bummer is that the Germans are not allowed to come back to the same quality as they did historically. I think a strong point can be made that the Germans of 1942 where just as good as in 1941, so why put all those scripted limitations to artificially knock them down regardless of how well the German player is doing? As the German you're being forced down a road, a spiral you cannot get out of even if you're doing great. The argument supporting this: "because it happened historically" is the design decision being questioned.
It's not easy though, either way. But it would be very nice if the Germans have a t least a chance to avoid the historical traps by good play.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch
The debate has never been that there were winter uniforms, but rather getting them there. The Germans did not use all all their supply transport for offensives (they didn't, actually - looking at the supply rates they were on a shoestring and offensives were rather stupid), they didn't have more than basic supply to spare at all.

The issue was how to rationalize the system so that it wasn't in continual crisis and such things as winter clothing could become part of the routine...

Given that supply is abstracted to a good extent now, such issues really don't have a place in the game, unless there is a release of the "Rails East!" expansion.

True, without a more sophisticated supply and transport system this makes little sense. And even for WiTP/AE after almost 6 years, and a rather refined supply system from the beginning, this has remained something that is hard to get right. Just remember the "easy times" of supplying units in Burma during monsoon, or the ease of keeping Darwin supplied.
But perhaps a tiny trick could mimic the winter clothing question: putting a division on refit for 2-4 turns in autumn 41, thereafter allowing it some minor benefits like smaller attrition during winter, perhaps treating it a bit like Mountain units or so. Don't think implementing such a rule would be too difficult, but I'd be surprised if a lot of players could spare units from the front line at that point.

Anyway, the change seems to be well conceived, and could make the game more fluid as well as more of a challenge with bigger fruits to grasp (or save) for both sides.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: glvaca
To be clear, first winter has to give the Russian some sort of advantage, preferably a big one. The big bummer is that the Germans are not allowed to come back to the same quality as they did historically. I think a strong point can be made that the Germans of 1942 where just as good as in 1941, so why put all those scripted limitations to artificially knock them down regardless of how well the German player is doing? As the German you're being forced down a road, a spiral you cannot get out of even if you're doing great. The argument supporting this: "because it happened historically" is the design decision being questioned.
It's not easy though, either way. But it would be very nice if the Germans have a t least a chance to avoid the historical traps by good play.

You're sort of contradicting in the highlighted portions.

In any case, even before the upcoming changes, there was no script that obliged Axis player to make some historical, and very questionable, decisions. With the Winter rules introduced by 1.04, the Axis player has a great deal of flexibility, and trade space for time, by giving up terrain in December and January, stiffening in February (as the penalties become milder). Something they most notoriously and historically did in the AGS sector, and elsewhere. The operational freedom that grants WiTE to the Axis allows to have a more rational and efficient 1942 position. That's a fact.

But there are two facts (or issues): first, the problems with morale, which can and are being addressed. Second, and only indirectly fixable, is that the best strategy for Axis players was to hold out to positions which wouldn't do any good - in the long term - to the fortunes of the war.

In my opinion, this second point was mostly the result of the extreme ease the Soviet player had to build up a very powerful system of entrenchments. Entrenchments which could be pierced but usually meant that in the process the attacking force was shot to pieces. Which discouraged offensive play by the Axis: the only chance it has to "downsize" the Red Army before it becomes the Red Armored Steamroller. It was history repeating - to some extent - where players where adopting that policy of "no retreating from where German blood has been spilt". If terrain was ceded, there was no chance of getting it back with a reasonable cost. Which had nefarious consequences, indirectly, by allowing the Soviet player to build a huge, efficient and well-supported army, well capable of shattering the Wehrmacht in one single winter campaign.

With the upcoming changes, as PeeDee so playfully describes, the devs have deactivated the two issues I describe above not charging directly on them - which would perhaps have been much easier but would have compromised the consistency of their design. So I say, let's get 1.05, let's play it to death, and then, let's review what has been said on this thread during this week [:)]

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

ORIGINAL: glvaca
To be clear, first winter has to give the Russian some sort of advantage, preferably a big one. The big bummer is that the Germans are not allowed to come back to the same quality as they did historically. I think a strong point can be made that the Germans of 1942 where just as good as in 1941, so why put all those scripted limitations to artificially knock them down regardless of how well the German player is doing? As the German you're being forced down a road, a spiral you cannot get out of even if you're doing great. The argument supporting this: "because it happened historically" is the design decision being questioned.
It's not easy though, either way. But it would be very nice if the Germans have a t least a chance to avoid the historical traps by good play.

You're sort of contradicting in the highlighted portions.

Why?
the point is that even while suffering a very big setback during historical winter 1941, the Germans were still as good, or very good, come historical 1942. I see no contradiction as that is history. We'll see if it's fixed with 1.05

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: glvaca

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

ORIGINAL: glvaca
To be clear, first winter has to give the Russian some sort of advantage, preferably a big one. The big bummer is that the Germans are not allowed to come back to the same quality as they did historically. I think a strong point can be made that the Germans of 1942 where just as good as in 1941, so why put all those scripted limitations to artificially knock them down regardless of how well the German player is doing? As the German you're being forced down a road, a spiral you cannot get out of even if you're doing great. The argument supporting this: "because it happened historically" is the design decision being questioned.
It's not easy though, either way. But it would be very nice if the Germans have a t least a chance to avoid the historical traps by good play.

You're sort of contradicting in the highlighted portions.

Why?
the point is that even while suffering a very big setback during historical winter 1941, the Germans were still as good, or very good, come historical 1942. I see no contradiction as that is history. We'll see if it's fixed with 1.05

First Winter rules are - in my understanding - such a "scripted limitation". My point was such a "scripted event" doesn't decisively cripple the Axis (provided other things elsewhere in the game are well oiled and tuned).

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

ORIGINAL: glvaca

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek



You're sort of contradicting in the highlighted portions.

Why?
the point is that even while suffering a very big setback during historical winter 1941, the Germans were still as good, or very good, come historical 1942. I see no contradiction as that is history. We'll see if it's fixed with 1.05

First Winter rules are - in my understanding - such a "scripted limitation". My point was such a "scripted event" doesn't decisively cripple the Axis (provided other things elsewhere in the game are well oiled and tuned).

Well, I certainly can agree with that. And, isn't that what I and others have been saying the whole time? Sure, have a harsh winter. Have it scipted but at least allow the German army to regain it's former quality IF the German player does a good job.

I don't see a difference in what you're saying and others and myself have been saying all along.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: glvaca

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
First Winter rules are - in my understanding - such a "scripted limitation". My point was such a "scripted event" doesn't decisively cripple the Axis (provided other things elsewhere in the game are well oiled and tuned).

Well, I certainly can agree with that. And, isn't that what I and others have been saying the whole time? Sure, have a harsh winter. Have it scipted but at least allow the German army to regain it's former quality IF the German player does a good job.

I don't see a difference in what you're saying and others and myself have been saying all along.

Well, the event, alone, doesn't cripple the Axis - that's something we're completely in agreement. But I'm under the impression that you're not taking into account that the Soviet player can do a better job, and still cripple the Axis [:)] Should the Axis rebound back in that case? Note how the change in morale also increases Soviet max morale.

In any case, the point - at least from my point of view - for 1941 Winter offensives is more about getting Guards divisions, corps and brigades by winning battles, than killing the Axis war machine. There's plenty of time for that.

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: glvaca

I think a strong point can be made that the Germans of 1942 where just as good as in 1941, so why put all those scripted limitations to artificially knock them down regardless of how well the German player is doing? As the German you're being forced down a road, a spiral you cannot get out of even if you're doing great.

Have to disagree on this one strongly. I would like to see any reference where someone says the German army of 1942 could even compare to the 1941 invasion force.

I have at least 1 book that the German staff absolutely states the 1942 army is not even close to the 1941 army in terms of mobility (especially among the infantry divisions) and this is due to several factors:

Loss of motor transport and the death of so many horses from the winter. The Germans lost something like 75000 vehicles in 1941. They sent 7500 replacements. Horses were better in that most of those were replaced.

Loss of material in the retreats, especially artillery that could not be moved in time. This caused most German batteries to be at 3 guns instead of 4.

Officer and NCO casualties along with casualties in general. The Germans did not make good the casualties they had suffered by the spring and summer and the theater was still short replacements to bring the army up to full ToE strength.

The one plus was the number of tanks was very close to the same, but the tanks were much better quality than what invaded Russia in 1941.

According to my book; the comments of the General staff were that a number of mobile divisions were created (all sent to the southern part of the front for Operation Blue) and many more units had limited mobility and punch. (Most of the rest of the front).

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

ORIGINAL: glvaca

I think a strong point can be made that the Germans of 1942 where just as good as in 1941, so why put all those scripted limitations to artificially knock them down regardless of how well the German player is doing? As the German you're being forced down a road, a spiral you cannot get out of even if you're doing great.

Have to disagree on this one strongly. I would like to see any reference where someone says the German army of 1942 could even compare to the 1941 invasion force.

I have at least 1 book that the German staff absolutely states the 1942 army is not even close to the 1941 army in terms of mobility (especially among the infantry divisions) and this is due to several factors:

Loss of motor transport and the death of so many horses from the winter. The Germans lost something like 75000 vehicles in 1941. They sent 7500 replacements. Horses were better in that most of those were replaced.

Loss of material in the retreats, especially artillery that could not be moved in time. This caused most German batteries to be at 3 guns instead of 4.

Officer and NCO casualties along with casualties in general. The Germans did not make good the casualties they had suffered by the spring and summer and the theater was still short replacements to bring the army up to full ToE strength.

The one plus was the number of tanks was very close to the same, but the tanks were much better quality than what invaded Russia in 1941.

According to my book; the comments of the General staff were that a number of mobile divisions were created (all sent to the southern part of the front for Operation Blue) and many more units had limited mobility and punch. (Most of the rest of the front).

I was talking about QUALITY and EXPERIENCE translated into MORALE in the game. [;)]

[Jakerson]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
First Winter rules are - in my understanding - such a "scripted limitation". My point was such a "scripted event" doesn't decisively cripple the Axis (provided other things elsewhere in the game are well oiled and tuned).

Well it is historical fact that Soviet ability to wage war during winter was better than German ability to wage war during winter. Soviet ability to handle logistics during winter was also better than German ability to handle logistics.

It has to be simulated with some rules.

[saintsup]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

ORIGINAL: glvaca

I think a strong point can be made that the Germans of 1942 where just as good as in 1941, so why put all those scripted limitations to artificially knock them down regardless of how well the German player is doing? As the German you're being forced down a road, a spiral you cannot get out of even if you're doing great.

Have to disagree on this one strongly. I would like to see any reference where someone says the German army of 1942 could even compare to the 1941 invasion force.

I have at least 1 book that the German staff absolutely states the 1942 army is not even close to the 1941 army in terms of mobility (especially among the infantry divisions) and this is due to several factors:

Loss of motor transport and the death of so many horses from the winter. The Germans lost something like 75000 vehicles in 1941. They sent 7500 replacements. Horses were better in that most of those were replaced.

Loss of material in the retreats, especially artillery that could not be moved in time. This caused most German batteries to be at 3 guns instead of 4.

Officer and NCO casualties along with casualties in general. The Germans did not make good the casualties they had suffered by the spring and summer and the theater was still short replacements to bring the army up to full ToE strength.

The one plus was the number of tanks was very close to the same, but the tanks were much better quality than what invaded Russia in 1941.

According to my book; the comments of the General staff were that a number of mobile divisions were created (all sent to the southern part of the front for Operation Blue) and many more units had limited mobility and punch. (Most of the rest of the front).

If you're right, this is not accuratly modelled at the moment:
- overall CV (due to moral ?) of german units is too low, including 'crack' panzer units, in comparison with soviet defense capability
- there is no shortage of trucks making the use of static mode not useful

In fact one of my major grip is that the static mode is not used in human/human play because there is not enough incentive/obligation to use it. Make it used and useful (by stick or carrot) and it could well be a good to simulate limitations to go on offensive on a whole front.

[Captain]

The June 42 German Army was not anywhere near as capable as the June 41 one.

Hitler was only able to bring Army Group South up to strength by taking shortcuts. All replacements were funneled to AGS. AG Center and North infantry divisions were reduced to 2 instead of 3 regiments and were stripped of most of their vehicles. The training program for recruits was also shortened to 2 months, so new recruits were less trained.

This is discussed by Glantz in vol.1 of his "Stalingrad trilogy".

[misesfan]

ORIGINAL: Captain

The June 42 German Army was not anywhere near as capable as the June 41 one.

Hitler was only able to bring Army Group South up to strength by taking shortcuts. All replacements were funneled to AGS. AG Center and North infantry divisions were reduced to 2 instead of 3 regiments and were stripped of most of their vehicles. The training program for recruits was also shortened to 2 months, so new recruits were less trained.

This is discussed by Glantz in vol.1 of his "Stalingrad trilogy".

Disagree - but that is one of the biggest debates in military history I think.

Regardless, the Germans were able to launch operations that were as deep as the crow the flies to their gains in 41. The fact is that the breadth and width of the frontage was enormous - no way they would be able to hold if they didnt score a decisive victory in the south. And of course Hitler meddles - 11th Army northbound when it scores a big win in the Crimea, the diversion of the fourth Panzer along the axis of sixth army, etc.. etc...

[saintsup]

ORIGINAL: Captain

Hitler was only able to bring Army Group South up to strength by taking shortcuts. All replacements were funneled to AGS. AG Center and North infantry divisions were reduced to 2 instead of 3 regiments and were stripped of most of their vehicles.

Shortcuts which are very dificult to mimic in game because of the capability of soviet to maintain offensive capability on the whole front.

[Captain]

ORIGINAL: saintsup

ORIGINAL: Captain

Hitler was only able to bring Army Group South up to strength by taking shortcuts. All replacements were funneled to AGS. AG Center and North infantry divisions were reduced to 2 instead of 3 regiments and were stripped of most of their vehicles.

Shortcuts which are very dificult to mimic in game because of the capability of soviet to maintain offensive capability on the whole front.

Not really, you can reduce TOE for all infantry divisions in AGN and AGC to 66% and set them to static. All excess replacements should now flow to AGS and should more or less replicate 42, I would think?

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: Captain

The June 42 German Army was not anywhere near as capable as the June 41 one.

Hitler was only able to bring Army Group South up to strength by taking shortcuts. All replacements were funneled to AGS. AG Center and North infantry divisions were reduced to 2 instead of 3 regiments and were stripped of most of their vehicles. The training program for recruits was also shortened to 2 months, so new recruits were less trained.

This is discussed by Glantz in vol.1 of his "Stalingrad trilogy".

Good books, although the wait for volume 3 is long.

What you say is right but you're missing the point I'm trying to make.

Let's turn it around, do you feel that in the historical situation, the German Army in june 1942, would have been what translates to 65 infantry, and 75 panzer morale? And with a cap for infantry not to go higher than 85 and 90 for panzers? Knowing these maximums are absolute (enforced by system) and are very hard to get too? How would you rate the historical German army versus the game "Morale abstraction"?

Now the above question concerns history. IMO I think a strong arguement can be made that the German morale/experience was quickly regained to the same hight as during the 1941 campaign.

Secondly, this is with the historical first winter mistakes. However, whatever you do as the german, the system will punish you with a morale point loss per blizard turn and then off course each time you lose a combat (offense/defence). This point per turn is fixed (unless in a blizard safe hex but the majority of your army will be affected).

In addition, the system does not allow you to re-gain morale quickly through combat. Making it very hard to regain lost morale and at the same time very easy to lose morale through failed attacks. And, here's the point, does not allow the players to reach historical high morale levels in 1942 and beyond.

Anyway, that's my analysis.

On another matter, 2 months training would still be _Considerably_ more than the average training of a Russian infantry man. Still, German replacements arrive with the same experience of 30 as their Russian counter parts...

[Captain]

I dont disagree with the history. Its clear that in summer 42, the German Army was still more capable than the Red Army. My only point is that it was not able to attack everywhere as in 41