Matrix Games Forums

If only Hitler felt that way Joe...hum...

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Believe it or not we have not tried to address the issue of victory in the campaign yet. The smaller scenarios have mechanisms for points per turn for objectives, points at the end of the scenario for objectives, and points for casualties.

One problem I see with points for casualties (And I realize WITP does this too) is that it creates a situation where the Germans could win the war based upon inflicting heavy casualties on the Soviets. Casualties for the Soviets were ultimately irrelevant. What was relevant was taking and holding key strategic objectives. A commander can easily walk away with a strategic victory while at the same time having suffered the most casualties on a tactical level. The strategic picture is what ultimately counts in warfare not the tactical.

If casualties are going to be counted then a Soviet casualty should count as maybe 1/2 a German casualty simply because the Soviets could afford to lose more.

If casualties are going to be counted then a Soviet casualty should count as maybe 1/2 a German casualty simply because the Soviets could afford to lose more.

It is possible to set whatever ratio in scenario editor.

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

What were the victory conditions in WIR? Could the Germans IRL ever have possibly won a total victory in the East? I just thought Moscow would be a nice place to draw the line and say "You win" if the German player takes it in a kind of mini-grand campaign/scenario. IIRC Panzer General I gave you victory over the Soviets if you took Moscow.

It seems to me that the Germans never could have won in the East. Just as the Japanese never could have won in the Pacific. So to make a game out of it you would need to set up some kind of artificial victory condition whereby the Axis player could "win".

EDIT: In Codename Panzers I, the Germans win their campaign by fighting off attacks around Stalingrad. However, it's sort of a bitter-sweet victory because it closes with Field Marshall Paulus telling you what a great job you did and giving you a box of cigars, all the while knowing that the Germans in Stalingrad are still doomed. That's about as much a victory as the Germans could get in an East Front campaign IMO, a kind of consolation prize saying "You fought well under hopeless circumstances".

EDIT 2: Besides Moscow another "instant victory" location could be the Caucasus oil fields. This would keep the Soviet player guessing as to where the German player will concentrate his efforts. I just think an "instant victory" location would be a fun alternative to simply accumulating "victory points". Yes. Give the players the ability to win without taking Moscow, Berlin, or the Caucasus but by giving them those instant victory conditions you would probably see some desperate drives on the part of players. It would make the game very fun and interesting IMO.

There was no such thing as an instant victory location in WIR, and knowing the populist nature of Panzer General that's none too surprising. WIR assigned certain cities with victory points. Moscow had the most points. IIRC, you had to capture two major victory point locations as the germans to win. This would be perhaps Stalingard and Moscow, or Leningrad and Moscow. As long as you took Mosocw I think you had to take one of those other major cities. Part of the strategy also involved trying to take cities which had production in them, to deny them evacuating or producing further. It's anybody's guess whtehr they will followm the WIR model for assigning victory conditions, but I thought it was a good system. It certainly would be much more of a bore if they came up with some artificial point system, such as in WITP, where the germans have the get a certain number of points bya certain date or can't win. From the USSR perspective, in WIR, they had to wait longer to get the outright victory, because they had to take things like Warsaw to get that (no Berlin on the map).

IRL taking Moscow, Leningrad AND Stalingrad, all three, would not have defeated the Soviets either. So you are still talking about setting up artificial victory conditions for the Germans. If you put some instant VPs out there then there will be some REAL consternation on the part of both players. Simply fighting to rake up victory points until 1945 can get dull. AND that's not how the war was fought anyway. Vicous battles were fought in all or nothing efforts to take or hold key places like Stalingrad, Moscow or Leningrad. It wasnt' because those places represented REAL victory if they were taken. Mostly it was political considerations which were driving both sides.

The Germans lost the moment they declared war on the Soviets. To make a game out of it will require some degree of "popularising" the war.

Okay, if you want to go the "it-couldn't-possibly-had-been-a-german-victory-because-it-wasn't" routine, but in so thinking you would also have to conclude that the USSR couldn't win WWII, because they lost in WWI (sort of) and that germany couldn't beat France either. You have to accept one key part of this, and I take it, all wargames, we are not playing this historically. The minute the human takes control, all things change, so it often is possible that a defeated nation can become victorious, which of course is part of the whole purpose of playing, to see how much better the player can do than was history. It's just as much conjecture to say the USSR wouldn't had melted if they lost more than they did, as to say they would had fell apart with only the loss of Moscow.

The player makes better decisions, he should find reward in some way, even if sometimes he does end up being defeated anyway (human directed war can go worser than historic too). From what I know of what I have read of the eastern front, I doubt very highly that losing especially Moscow, Leningrad, and Stalingrad wouldn't had been enough to throw in the towel, and especially if you throw in the Caucauses. In WIR, the USSR also lost key production and assets to have lost those places. Regaining them got you with those things more damaged if I recollect properly.

The very same can be said for the USSR. If the USSR holds Kiev for example, shouldn't they keep any of it's industry and so forth? Must the USSR fall back to the historic lines just because it was so in history? A really good USSR player has things to gain from history, even in '41. The USSR player plays for bettering history as well. Somehow or other people have the notion that the USSR was some sort of invincible monolith that would continously fight on no matter how much territory it lost, and if that means a defeated army and partisans fighting, well maybe so, but that's not a victorious nation, but only one with uprising with no hope of defeating an organized professional army (a nation in game terms which is defeated).

That would be the situation where it gets to a point, and that point was there somewhere, where the whole thing would collapse, but we just don't know where that is for sure. Germany was the same way in many respects, as it fought on after a great deal had been taken, but after losing in so many ways, it came to a point that no matter how well what was left fought on, and some didn't, that they were done as a force capable of resisting an advancing army, and thus defeated. France, for instance, had a much lower tolerance for invasion, and loss, than did germany. Germany had one thing the USSR often did not, and that was unison to a degree. Stalin at the mere idea of losing Moscow was considered as in danger for his life, but those (they were called Council of Twelve or something like that) who would see that he was killed, supported him instead. With even just the fall of Moscow, you cannot know what that would do to change their minds. Now would the USSR as a fighting force effectively be done with an assasination of Stalin? It well could, as so many credit him for being the guy who saved them from at least the loss of Moscow. Perhaps that's the whole reason Stalin stayed in the first place, because he thought he was as good as dead if it had fell. Could another leader, if they could manage one, had done better? Quite possibly, but even if one were to accept the premise that removal of Stalin were key, then one would have to figure out when that would occur. After loss of Moscow, maybe not, After loss of Moscow -and- Leningrad, especially if both occured in '41, very probable. In my mind, even should the game follow the WIR victory conditions, it should also allow the player to play beyond that point if he so wishes. I don't think WIR would let you do that. That way you have the best of both worlds. You have the WIR victory level, and then whatever victory level after that which you may wish to recognize as a better victory level (perhaps as radical as every enemy city being taken).

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

Okay, if you want to go the "it-couldn't-possibly-had-been-a-german-victory-because-it-wasn't" routine, but in so thinking you would also have to conclude that the USSR couldn't win WWII, because they lost in WWI (sort of) and that germany couldn't beat France either.

Maybe Germany could have won if they had captured Stalin in Moscow in '41...maybe. But the Soviet Union was not going to roll over and die just because Stalingrad fell or because Moscow fell. Germany didn't have the resources in manpower or material to conquer the Soviet Union.

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

So maybe if the Germans take Moscow before the end of 1941 or the Soviets fail to take Berlin before the end of 1945 give victory to the Germans. If the Germans don't take Moscow early then their only alternative for victory is to keep the Soviets from collapsing the Reich by taking Berlin. On the side have both sides accumulate victory points so that if the game ends early for whatever reason the player with the most VPs can declare himself the winner.

I still think WIR had it right, but then you don't know of the WIR conditions. The USSR shouldn't 'lose' because they might not take Berlin either. Whether the USSR would had surrendered with the loss of Moscow, just by itself, is somewhat doubtable, but we already know that wasn't the case with Berlin, or even Hitler being killed. In WIR, the USSR didn't win by taking only Berlin (it wasn't even on the map), and it's conditions were similar to the german conditions for victory: you had to take like the most major city (Warsaw?) and one other. There was a point in WIR, where germany automatically lost if the western allies historic timeframe elapsed, but that's the only victory condition that makes any sense as far as either losing because they didn't take something. The game is fought from the german perspective, hence the name. The game would be a bit silly if you were to make the USSR "lose" because Berlin wasn't taken by it's captured date. This is so, because if this is anything like WIR, the game is more about the entire war for the germans, as the other fronts were represented abstractly, so the premise, to WIR anyway, was the germans had to conquer enough cities to achieve the victory points necessary. The germans could lose to either the USSR, or the advancing western allies, as it was taken for granted that germany could only pretty much do no better than historic on other fronts (don't ask me why). The USSR could only lose by the germans taking sufficient victory point locations, as it had no other nation to deal with.

Think of this another way if you would. If you are of the mind, and I'm not saying you are (you seem to be thinking it out), that Moscow's fall means german victory in '41, but also that Berlin not falling in '45 means USSR loss too, look at the massive difference possible. In '41, should everything else gone the same way, losing Moscow is pretty severe. But look at USSR '45 which had not yet taken Berlin at some point. Were they much better off a fighting force than the '41 USSR? Would they lay down their arms just because they didn't take Berlin by either the historic date or '45 altogether? Then consider the german end of it too, as 'losing' Berlin, though they were clearly defeated already militarily, still didn't result in a surrender, so why should USSR victory conditions be so dependant on a city falling which didn't end up bringing the victory? Another way of looking at this, is germany didn't lose the war because they didn't take Moscow. The allies didn't lose the war with Japan because they didn't take Tokyo. The game needs to be dependant on a point where a certain amount of loss is spelled as a surrender. And I don't think surrender or armistice comes because you didn't take somebody else's capitol. Taking a capitol, maybe, not taking it, never.

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

I still think WIR had it right, but then you don't know of the WIR conditions. The USSR shouldn't 'lose' because they might not take Berlin either. Whether the USSR would had surrendered with the loss of Moscow, just by itself, is somewhat doubtable, but we already know that wasn't the case with Berlin, or even Hitler being killed. In WIR, the USSR didn't win by taking only Berlin (it wasn't even on the map), and it's conditions were similar to the german conditions for victory: you had to take like the most major city (Warsaw?) and one other. There was a point in WIR, where germany automatically lost if the western allies historic timeframe elapsed, but that's the only victory condition that makes any sense as far as either losing because they didn't take something. The game is fought from the german perspective, hence the name. The game would be a bit silly if you were to make the USSR "lose" because Berlin wasn't taken by it's captured date. This is so, because if this is anything like WIR, the game is more about the entire war for the germans, as the other fronts were represented abstractly, so the premise, to WIR anyway, was the germans had to conquer enough cities to achieve the victory points necessary. The germans could lose to either the USSR, or the advancing western allies, as it was taken for granted that germany could only pretty much do no better than historic on fronts (don't ask me why). The USSR could only lose by the germans taking sufficient victory point locations, as it had no other nation to deal with.

Think of this another way if you would. If you are of the mind, and I'm not saying you are (you seem to be thinking it out), that Moscow's fall means german victory in '41, but also that Berlin not falling in '45 means USSR loss too, look at the massive difference possible. In '41, should everything else gone the same way, losing Moscow is pretty severe. But look at USSR '45 which had not yet taken Berlin at some point. Were they much better off a fighting force than the '41 USSR? Would they lay down their arms just because they didn't take Berlin by either the historic date or '45 altogether? Then consider the german end of it too, as 'losing' Berlin, though they were clearly defeated already militarily, still didn't result in a surrender, so why should USSR victory conditions be so dependant on a city falling which didn't end up bringing the victory? Another way of looking at this, is germany didn't lose the war because they didn't take Moscow. The allies didn't lose the war with Japan because they didn't take Tokyo. The game needs to be dependant on a point where a certain amount of loss is spelled as a surrender. And I don't think surrender or armistice comes because you didn't take somebody else's capitol. Taking a capitol, maybe, not taking it, never.

OK. So have the main campaign depend upon whatever conditions were in WIR if they were good conditions. Still I think it would be neat to have a couple smaller mini-campaigns with a race to Berlin and Moscow as the objectives. [8D]

Charles, I agree that a German defeat was not a foregone conclusion. It was unlikely after '41 and all but inevitable after '42, but events could have gone much differently for both sides. If Japan had made threatning moves in Manchuria or actually declared war and tied down some of the Siberian Divisions that were so crucial to the Russian counter-attack during that first winter and if the Germans had made Moscow the main objective instead of Kiev, I think they might have pulled it off.

It still wouldn't have been easy but it just might have set them up for the killer blow in '42. What if Hitler had established an "independent" Ukraine in '41-'42? The main failing of the Germans was that they didn't plan on a two year campaign and instead imagined a quick knockout blow similar to France. Obviously Russia had much more resilience than France.

Same thing with Japan. If the US hadn't found the Japanese carriers first at Midway and instead the US lost three carriers to maybe a Japanese loss of one; then even if Japan still ended up losing in the Pacific, the US war effort would have been greatly slowed down.

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

I still think WIR had it right, but then you don't know of the WIR conditions. The USSR shouldn't 'lose' because they might not take Berlin either. Whether the USSR would had surrendered with the loss of Moscow, just by itself, is somewhat doubtable, but we already know that wasn't the case with Berlin, or even Hitler being killed. In WIR, the USSR didn't win by taking only Berlin (it wasn't even on the map), and it's conditions were similar to the german conditions for victory: you had to take like the most major city (Warsaw?) and one other. There was a point in WIR, where germany automatically lost if the western allies historic timeframe elapsed, but that's the only victory condition that makes any sense as far as either losing because they didn't take something. The game is fought from the german perspective, hence the name. The game would be a bit silly if you were to make the USSR "lose" because Berlin wasn't taken by it's captured date. This is so, because if this is anything like WIR, the game is more about the entire war for the germans, as the other fronts were represented abstractly, so the premise, to WIR anyway, was the germans had to conquer enough cities to achieve the victory points necessary. The germans could lose to either the USSR, or the advancing western allies, as it was taken for granted that germany could only pretty much do no better than historic on fronts (don't ask me why). The USSR could only lose by the germans taking sufficient victory point locations, as it had no other nation to deal with.

Think of this another way if you would. If you are of the mind, and I'm not saying you are (you seem to be thinking it out), that Moscow's fall means german victory in '41, but also that Berlin not falling in '45 means USSR loss too, look at the massive difference possible. In '41, should everything else gone the same way, losing Moscow is pretty severe. But look at USSR '45 which had not yet taken Berlin at some point. Were they much better off a fighting force than the '41 USSR? Would they lay down their arms just because they didn't take Berlin by either the historic date or '45 altogether? Then consider the german end of it too, as 'losing' Berlin, though they were clearly defeated already militarily, still didn't result in a surrender, so why should USSR victory conditions be so dependant on a city falling which didn't end up bringing the victory? Another way of looking at this, is germany didn't lose the war because they didn't take Moscow. The allies didn't lose the war with Japan because they didn't take Tokyo. The game needs to be dependant on a point where a certain amount of loss is spelled as a surrender. And I don't think surrender or armistice comes because you didn't take somebody else's capitol. Taking a capitol, maybe, not taking it, never.

OK. So have the main campaign depend upon whatever conditions were in WIR if they were good conditions. Still I think it would be neat to have a couple smaller mini-campaigns with a race to Berlin and Moscow as the objectives. [8D]

That could work, but you could of course get such things in the overall campaign,b on your own, but unfortunately the game wouldn't reflect that. Seems I have heard somebody say that you could alter conditions through the editor, so you could even have the game reflect your own conditions that way. It sure helps though if you can play beyond any conditions which you or the game has set. You might want to make Moscow and berlin as the only victory objectives, but then when you get down to actually getting close to meeting one of those conditions decide it wasn't good enough and play on.

ORIGINAL: Arinvald

Charles, I agree that a German defeat was not a foregone conclusion. It was unlikely after '41 and all but inevitable after '42, but events could have gone much differently for both sides. If Japan had made threatning moves in Manchuria or actually declared war and tied down some of the Siberian Divisions that were so crucial to the Russian counter-attack during that first winter and if the Germans had made Moscow the main objective instead of Kiev, I think they might have pulled it off.

It still wouldn't have been easy but it just might have set them up for the killer blow in '42. What if Hitler had established an "independent" Ukraine in '41-'42? The main failing of the Germans was that they didn't plan on a two year campaign and instead imagined a quick knockout blow similar to France. Obviously Russia had much more resilience than France.

Same thing with Japan. If the US hadn't found the Japanese carriers first at Midway and instead the US lost three carriers to maybe a Japanese loss of one; then even if Japan still ended up losing in the Pacific, the US war effort would have been greatly slowed down.

Yes, everything affects everything else, but I guess in terms of games made nobody wants to get into that much detail outside of the scope of the immediate theatre a particular game is concerned with. GG really needs to do something which has never been done, make a global WWII game. And no, HoI doesn't count as a global WWII game (or GG's similar game). It sure would be neat to command the USA, for example, and decide whether you really want to bother with germany or not, and then see what the result is. I guess World in Flames is the closest thing to decent worldwide WWII action will see for quite a while.

You'll find it this game, that things that worked in WIR don't now. The supply issue has been the one big thing we worked on. Those powerfull PzD's dont run well without gas. So some times you have to just rest them and wait...Trust me guys this is Gary and Joel at their best...

ORIGINAL: Arinvald

Charles, I agree that a German defeat was not a foregone conclusion. It was unlikely after '41 and all but inevitable after '42, but events could have gone much differently for both sides. If Japan had made threatning moves in Manchuria or actually declared war and tied down some of the Siberian Divisions that were so crucial to the Russian counter-attack during that first winter and if the Germans had made Moscow the main objective instead of Kiev, I think they might have pulled it off.

It still wouldn't have been easy but it just might have set them up for the killer blow in '42. What if Hitler had established an "independent" Ukraine in '41-'42? The main failing of the Germans was that they didn't plan on a two year campaign and instead imagined a quick knockout blow similar to France. Obviously Russia had much more resilience than France.
...

First of all, Nazi Germany was not about to establish an 'independent' Ukraine. It is hard to see that happening with Nazi ideology, and if you take that Nazi ideology away, well there might not have been a war in the first place. So the two concepts: Nazi invasion of USSR, and appealing to the independence desires of the various non-Russian peoples of the USSR, really dont go together.

About a two year campaign, again, if the Germans had realized that the USSR couldnt be defeated in a single campaign, they probably wouldnt have invaded in the first place. *In hindsight*, we know that a single season campaign was very unlikely to succeed because of the distances involved, the huge logistics problems, and because the Soviet army was considerably bigger and stronger than Germany thought. But the Germans realized none of those things (well, at least the ultimate decision-makers didnt know them or act on them), so they invaded with the expectation of a 2 or 3 month campaign, which when you look back on it, seems ridiculous. So again, the concepts of German invasion of Russia, and multi-year campaign strategy, really dont go together very well.

I agree, but it really would have taken 3 years, with no bad breaks...

ORIGINAL: EdinHouston

ORIGINAL: Arinvald

Charles, I agree that a German defeat was not a foregone conclusion. It was unlikely after '41 and all but inevitable after '42, but events could have gone much differently for both sides. If Japan had made threatning moves in Manchuria or actually declared war and tied down some of the Siberian Divisions that were so crucial to the Russian counter-attack during that first winter and if the Germans had made Moscow the main objective instead of Kiev, I think they might have pulled it off.

It still wouldn't have been easy but it just might have set them up for the killer blow in '42. What if Hitler had established an "independent" Ukraine in '41-'42? The main failing of the Germans was that they didn't plan on a two year campaign and instead imagined a quick knockout blow similar to France. Obviously Russia had much more resilience than France.
...

First of all, Nazi Germany was not about to establish an 'independent' Ukraine. It is hard to see that happening with Nazi ideology, and if you take that Nazi ideology away, well there might not have been a war in the first place. So the two concepts: Nazi invasion of USSR, and appealing to the independence desires of the various non-Russian peoples of the USSR, really dont go together.

About a two year campaign, again, if the Germans had realized that the USSR couldnt be defeated in a single campaign, they probably wouldnt have invaded in the first place. *In hindsight*, we know that a single season campaign was very unlikely to succeed because of the distances involved, the huge logistics problems, and because the Soviet army was considerably bigger and stronger than Germany thought. But the Germans realized none of those things (well, at least the ultimate decision-makers didnt know them or act on them), so they invaded with the expectation of a 2 or 3 month campaign, which when you look back on it, seems ridiculous. So again, the concepts of German invasion of Russia, and multi-year campaign strategy, really dont go together very well.

I agree with everything that you stated. I was simply laying out a hypothetical possibility that could have made German victory possible, no matter how unlikely. Once the "what if" can of worms is opened there will be no end of possibilities.

I opened a can of worms once and saw Hitlers face...lol...He and only he lost that war, ah but what the hell, he started it...

Is it possible to have Victory Conditions work in a similar way to The Russian Campaign (AH) which I quite liked. In the board game each side chooses a victory location(s) for each year, and if he holds both his and his opponents then he wins a certain level of victory. IIRC in TRC in the first year Fritz could choose Kiev (for example), whilst Ivan might choose Moscow and only if either side held both would there be a certain level of victory. Not sure if this works for a PC game though, but given TRC is one of the finest board games covering the Eastern Front it might just work.

It seems to me that destruction of units should accrue victory points.

If they don't, units cam be used as suicide units and hold out til destroyed and that makes the game "gamey".



-

AH's Russian Campaign is indeed a classic. I still have my copy but haven't played it for decades. I like the idea of having changing objectives. It is a good way to introduce some uncertainty.

I agree that destroyed units should count toward victory.