Late War Command and Control

[elmo3]

Players don't control production or unit withdrawals, both of which could be attributed in part to Stalin or Hitler.  Leaders may be removed by Hitler or Stalin for doing poorly.  You can replace leaders too but higher initiative rated leaders are less likely to be on the promotion list because Stalin does not like initiative.  Political rating affects various things about leaders which could indirectly be attributed to Stalin and Hitler.

Some players will say that is just the right amount of intervention from above, some will say it's not enough, and some will say too much.  Ultimately it's up to the designers to draw the line since it's their game.

[B455]

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Players are not Hilter or Stalin in the game. Your commanders of either OKH or STAKA...

Well, because there exists no superior command with its demands, orders, directives or whatever, above players I think it makes sense to say that players step in boots of either Hitler or Stalin. Politics and in addition production aside as I said. Semantics...

[B455]

ORIGINAL: Pford

Also, during the real campaign the Soviets, under pressure from Stalin, launched countless feckless and counter-productive attacks on the advancing Germans. Formations ended up exposed and cut off. Since the player is master of his own fate in the game, the Soviets don't suffer from this friction and can, more frequently than was the case, conduct orderly withdrawals.

I believe this was also general Soviet doctrine of the time. With hindsight we know the Red Army was not capable of conducting such counter-attacks. I don't know if this could be modelled by just having a number of Soviet formations becoming "frozen" (could not be moved) for a turn or so in the beginning weeks of the -41 campaign?

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver
Players are not Hilter or Stalin in the game. Your commanders of either OKH or STAKA...

Yes and the command and control of the Soviets improved as the war went on.

In another game, this improvement is represented by changing the Combat Result Table (“CRT”)

Each country has it’s own CRT

The CRT changes over the length of the war.

It makes the Germans very good in 1940 and the Russians and very good in 1944-45.

-

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: B455

I believe this was also general Soviet doctrine of the time. With hindsight we know the Red Army was not capable of conducting such counter-attacks. I don't know if this could be modelled by just having a number of Soviet formations becoming "frozen" (could not be moved) for a turn or so in the beginning weeks of the -41 campaign?

There are a number of first turn rules that affect both sides, generally making it easier for the Germans to attack and harder for the Soviets to respond.

[PyleDriver]

Morale reflects that in the game. German morale goes down as the war goes on, and Soviet morale goes up. Morale effects so much in battle results...

[Phenix]

But Morale doesnt go down if Germany is winning i hope? that would be illogical

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Phenix

But Morale doesnt go down if Germany is winning i hope? that would be illogical

Think of it as war weariness for the Germans and national pride for the Soviets. Now there may be a sudden death win for the Germans, that has not been decided yet.

[B455]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

ORIGINAL: Phenix

But Morale doesnt go down if Germany is winning i hope? that would be illogical

Think of it as war weariness for the Germans and national pride for the Soviets. Now there may be a sudden death win for the Germans, that has not been decided yet.

Perhaps this coul be connected to casualties/losses in general and of course occupied/liberated cities?

[HMSWarspite]

The issue everyone forgets with these games is the time needed to design and code everything. Would I like the game to cover more? of course. I would like the entire war in Europe on this scale, with production, R & D and everything. Plus player aids that mean I can have instant summaries and data mining etc. But I know there are only so many man hours available to produce these things. Scope creep (or not setting a manageable scope to begin with) is a major source of vapourware. I want to play the game I have seen  in the AAR rather than never see the AE edition (WitP reference - and look how long that upgrade took! )

[Obsolete]

I will finally add my own 2 cents here, about those wanting super-realism.

I find this such a paradox.  Even the best axis generals could not magically predict future events such as the reccord breaking weather, etc.  And since the best of the best couldn’t, why on earth should I, measily nerd-player, be able to have such paranormal insights?  

Yet these people arguing for super-realistic scenarios, refuse to see that they themselves are turning things into unrealism right off the bat.

War is full of unknown variables.  If only the Spanish Armada knew how the weather was to turn out that fateful trip, we’d not be speaking English today.  

If only the Canadians at their disaster of Deippe could have a second go at it, once discovering all the problems with the terrain, etc.  Well, I am sorry but battles just don’t work that way.  It is usually a one-shot deal, and you can’t change mother-nature when the dice rolls don‘t go your way.

I always get a kick when I see game-play statements such as “Purchase proper vehicles for the long winter battles ahead”, “hunker down for the long seige of so & so”…  Contrary to the fact that those outcomes were certainly not expected at the time.  And then to hear how so & so game is the ultimate REALISTIC game, since the events are such historically accurate.

Besides, I have no interest in ever playing Stalingrad maps if I know I am going to WIN or LOSE every time.

[Theng]

I find this whole "ahistorical" argument pretty falacious. If you want to remove non-historical options from the game then it turns into a video of what historically happened because Hoepner can't attack North because historically he attacked South. Replaying history without the variation is much better done by Hollywood than Matrix Games.

I play these games because they start from a historical starting point and then becomes completely ahistorical due to the choices I have. The game, and yes it is a game, becomes the more interesting the more latitude I have without taking into account the idiosynchrasies of the respective leaders.

In short, the above poster Obsolete is correct. I want to have a chance to change history, not relive it. Even in the movie Groundhog Day one had a chance to change things and have a different outcome.

[Pford]

Morale reflects that in the game. German morale goes down as the war goes on, and Soviet morale goes up. Morale effects so much in battle results...

Unless I'm misunderstanding, this seems like an artificial overlay. Did you mean net German morale goes down as the war grind attrits the elite formations? Many of the greener units fought fanatically at the end. And why should Soviet morale go up, unless this represents accrued experience?

If there's such a thing as Global Morale in the game the primary effect might be on the growth and proliferation of Partisans. These groups tended to grow in numbers and intensity as German fortunes ebbed. In the East and the West.

[Phenix]

I just think that morale which has alot of influence on combat should have some relation to the amount of victory points you have captured/lost.
It just seem strange that if Germany does better than historically and captures Leningrad, Stalingrad  and Moskva, suddenly they get war weariness ,because a paramter is coded in the game that states that by May -42 German Morale will be lowered by xx, it somehow should have some relation to how just that game is unfolding.

[freeboy]

this issue should be addressed

[paullus99]

Something to consider - the US was in the war for a shorter period of time, loss less people & was winning most of the time, but by 1945 the US public was more than eager to get the troops back as quickly as possible (Operation Flying Carpet).

And the troops in Europe weren't real happy about the possibility of shifting over to Japan, once Germany was defeated - so war-weariness is just an applicable, such as "why can't we just win this thing already & bring the troops home," even if Germany is winning the war.

[Phenix]

well ok, but it still isnt really comparable, the US forces fought on another continent than their own, their homes wasnt directly in danger as is was for the russians or for Germany.

regarding shifting theatres, its understandable, but Germany and the Russians where locked in the same struggle for 4 years , so i dont think you can compare it to fighting in Italy only to be transfered to the pacific.

There goals where pretty much the same all the time on the eastern front win or get your country destroyed.
The US never really faced that same situation.
So if by taking Stalingrad , Leningrad and Moskva already in -42 (somehow) then the morale should go up if anything, not down, because they will face a shorter war than expected (or as short as hitler expected...)

Same thing for the russians, if they see that the big bad Germans dont get anywhere there morale might raise sooner rather than later.

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: Phenix

I just think that morale which has alot of influence on combat should have some relation to the amount of victory points you have captured/lost.
It just seem strange that if Germany does better than historically and captures Leningrad, Stalingrad  and Moskva, suddenly they get war weariness ,because a paramter is coded in the game that states that by May -42 German Morale will be lowered by xx, it somehow should have some relation to how just that game is unfolding.

There appears to be a bit of confusion about the concept we call in the game, National Morale. This term was probably a poor choice of words since it implies the fighting spirit of the soldiers when in fact what it is describing is a much broader set of factors that shape the combat capability of a unit. The biggest influence on National Morale is the quality and length of training that troops receive. German National Morale erodes during the game not because the German people were becoming war weary but because the Germans kept reducing the training period and broadening the recruitment pool to produce the replacements necessary for the front.

[freeboy]

ok... war wearines goes both ways. .to pre program things like supply morale other intangibles not connected is fine.. BUT we should have a choice to ammend these..
If the red army is gettign its butt kicked but has a prediposed bump up in qaulity/ morale etc not tied to on board issues this MUST be able to be addressed by modding.. If you say this happened therefore that mus thappen you straight jacket the forces on either side
IMO

[Pford]

Eliminating any influence of either Hitler or Stalin from the CinC makes the game non-historical.

Hitler's meddling in the war got worse as time went on, often down to the small unit level. Stalin eventually learned, through hard experience, to trust his generals. Stalin's most egregious errors had already been committed before the invasion; namely the officer purges and the forbidding the forces in Poland and the other border regions to actually adopt an posture of aggressive defense, for example dispersing his formidable amour assets so as not to provoke the Germans. These allowed the vast 1941 encirclements and the destruction of the Soviet air force. But Stalin also aggravated a dire situation with his premature counter-offensives and contributed to the massive pocket at Kiev by issuing his 'not one step backwards' order.

One could argue that Hitler and Stalin cancelled each other out. Nevertheless their impact was huge.