Matrix Games Forums

Historical question: Did the Soviet (military) high command attempt to defend forward in 1941 because they thought it was a good idea, or because Stalin ordered it (and you don't say 'no' to Stalin, or Hitler either)? Wasn't Stalin pressuring for early counter-attacks, even though it didn't make sense militarily (though he may have had politics on his mind in that turning tail might send a bad message to potential rivals)? Same thing for Hitler and the 'no retreat' orders later in the war?

So a solution perhaps is to allow for 'political' interference by either scenario design or random chance have your 'dictator' remove the option- e.g., no movements away from the enemy/disbanding/relocating units for X turns.

ORIGINAL: pompack

#1 and #3.

Just an opinion: I don't think that #2 is even possible EXCEPT when done as seperate scenarios since the actions of the AI are inherently dependent on the path taken to the action decision point.

You're saying that you can't code a Soviet AI so that in 1941:

1. It is affected by shock and has 25% movement and admin points, etc.
2. It doesn't retreat for the first few turns.
3. The code that causes it to escape from pockets is deactivated for the first few months.
4. The General in command of STAVKA has minimal skills and cannot be replaced for the first few months.
5. Other Generals have reduced skills and no initiative for the first months.
6. It makes a defense line (e.g. with stacks) instead of defending in depth.

??????

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz

Historical question: Did the Soviet (military) high command attempt to defend forward in 1941 because they thought it was a good idea, or because Stalin ordered it (and you don't say 'no' to Stalin, or Hitler either)? Wasn't Stalin pressuring for early counter-attacks, even though it didn't make sense militarily (though he may have had politics on his mind in that turning tail might send a bad message to potential rivals)? Same thing for Hitler and the 'no retreat' orders later in the war?

So a solution perhaps is to allow for 'political' interference by either scenario design or random chance have your 'dictator' remove the option- e.g., no movements away from the enemy/disbanding/relocating units for X turns.

Many historians believe that Stalin was preparing either a first strike or a major counter-offensive to be launched as soon as the Germans attacked. However, this second theory conflicts with the obvious shock that he suffered when the Germans did attack him.

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz

So a solution perhaps is to allow for 'political' interference by either scenario design or random chance have your 'dictator' remove the option- e.g., no movements away from the enemy/disbanding/relocating units for X turns.

Sounds pretty simple, doesn't it? Just code the AI to be a bit less intelligent while it's suffering from the shock of being invaded. That would make a big difference IMO.

Personally, I wouldn't want the 'no retreat' hard-coded, but maybe as an option in the scenario design. Or even have your 'Hitler' demand Operation Typhoon (or some other objective)- if he doesn't get what he wants (say if Moscow isn't taken by X), then 'heads roll' - e.g. AGC commander is executed, and automatically replaced by the highest Political-rated available FM.

Maybe no changes are necessary, except to adjust the scenario design to provide short-term VP objectives for the Soviets far forward that would entice the AI (or a player) to attempt to stick around and fight.

Alright

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

I want to find out if my views are in the minority here.

Did you buy this game (or are you thinking of buying) primarily to:

1. Play against an AI that uses clever tactics, but which will play very differently from the historical human generals (for example, by giving up Minsk to defend further back), or

2. Play against an AI that gives you a reasonable facsimile of WW2 operational decisions, as per actual history (for example, by standing and fighting in 1941 even if a pocket is formed), or

3. Play PBEM vs. a human - anything goes.

Please post your thoughts.

I'll bite........

#1 and #3 for me with equal emphasis on both of those choices. If pushed I do like the challenge between 2 players so #3 would get the advantage.

My question back is what are your views? Would be nice to know them without going through a merry thread search.

#1 and 3 for me.

1 and 3 for me too.

As long as I start with the units and supplies that were availible at the time on the first turn, then it's up to me to decide what I should do with them.

I daresay yoo could go for historical results by following the historical Barbarossa as closly as posiible.

I iz gonna have to wait until after chrimbo to find out though [:(]

Cheers

Jev

Many historians believe that Stalin was preparing either a first strike or a major counter-offensive to be launched as soon as the Germans attacked.

Completly wrong.

1. There are simply NOT many historians, who do believe this.
2. ALL Wehrmacht file of summer 1941 indicate complete suprise of the Red Army.
3. Don't you think that IF there would have been the slightest evidence of such an Red Army preperation, that the German Propaganda Ministry wouldn't have sold this big time to the international audience? Like Katyn?

Regards

2 and 3 here.

I don't (yet) have the game.
 
If one side has air superiority, can that side do more air recon than without air superiority?
 
Are there game mechanics designed with the intention to gain air superiority?
-
 

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

ORIGINAL: pompack

#1 and #3.

Just an opinion: I don't think that #2 is even possible EXCEPT when done as seperate scenarios since the actions of the AI are inherently dependent on the path taken to the action decision point.

You're saying that you can't code a Soviet AI so that in 1941:

1. It is affected by shock and has 25% movement and admin points, etc.
2. It doesn't retreat for the first few turns.
3. The code that causes it to escape from pockets is deactivated for the first few months.
4. The General in command of STAVKA has minimal skills and cannot be replaced for the first few months.
5. Other Generals have reduced skills and no initiative for the first months.
6. It makes a defense line (e.g. with stacks) instead of defending in depth.

??????

No, I am just saying that after you have done that it is still not historical. Furthermore, even if I used MY opinion of historical instead of yours, it still would not work.

Ok, I'm breaking this cone of silence. What in the heck are you talking about pompack?

All three for me. I plan on a PBEM eventually of the Grand Campaign. To me at least that IS the holy grail of a game of this scope.

edited to add 1 and 2 seem to ask what you would prefer the AI to do. Since there is little info on how dynamic it is to date id say 1 and 2 are one of the same yes? At any rate if I misunderstood you I do not wish a AI to march lockstep in any particular direction, I want a AI opponent that can be dynamic and adapt to the situation. One other observation regarding this question on your part, I cannot think of any game that wasnt scripted to do something to mimic history that dosnt break FROM history once you play the first turn.

I did buy it although I had intended to wait, but I figured id give Matrix a boost and purchase it to help thier sales.

I lean more towards #1....

But....Like other folks who are war buffs, well versed or not, and feel like we could all have done a better job 'quarterbacking' the Eastern Front much better than all the Generals actually involved back then; it would be tantalizing to have a 'Historical' set of scenerios; to see if each of our strategies would have had a different outcome to histories realities on the Eastern Front.

So...#2 does perk my interest as well. Not into PBEM

As for PomPack's comments.... I am guessing, and I am only guessing....is that he is saying that each of us have a set of different ideas of what is historical, and that nobody could tweak the AI to make it truly closer to the real deal, no matter what was done.

Looking at redmarkus4 ideas seems reasonable and feasible to me, but....

"Since I don't know 'Diddly Squat' about AI code...not sure what is possible and what is not."

IF I bought the game I'd be buying it in the knowledge that the Axis AI isn't the best as the game goes on...however playing against the Russian AI early war is I believe good enough.....the game is to massive in scope for a challenging AI for both sides through the whole war...I reckon it would have needed another year or so to give it a good AI for both sides all though the war....from just reading the forum very little was tested with regards to playing the Russians against the Axis AI...I think anyone buying this game who thinks it's going to have a brilliant AI all through the war for both sides will be in the long run dissapointed....once people have the game for awhile I can forsee more posts asking for AI improvements..

It's one reason why I'm holding off until it hits the sale next Xmas...

#1 then #3 but I will not play a grand campaign PBEM as I cannot commit that long.

Once bought, I'll be playing strictly against the AI. Given that the 'outside influences' have been set by design to be historically fixed I'm actually quite surprised to hear that the Soviet AI doesn't attempt to re-create the early-war shock & "Hold Fast" orders, so I would have expected the #2 option to have been a priority. Once 1942 is reached, the AI would then act by avoiding being pocketed more, per historical actions.

But this is "just" a matter of AI scripting, isn't it? Is this something that's open to modding?

Steve.

Is this something that's open to modding?

Yes

#1 and #3.

Regarding pompack "issue": I am glad 2by3 hasn't hardcoded that, quite historical Soviet perceived behavior, especially in the campaign game. If anybody feels like needing a "History Channel" Operation Barbarossa scenario, there's a scenario editor included with WiTE.

That's not to say that WiTE doesn't accurately depict Red Army capabilities (or liabilities) in the first years of the war, it does and it does very well:

1) Red Army logistics at the start of the war are inadequate to say the least, the SU motor pool will take a few turns to get to an acceptable level.
2) Most leaders are very bad and/or unexperienced.
3) Red Army units morale, training and mobility is much below the standard for the Wehrmacht.
4) Red Army command structure is far from optimal.
5) Red Army initial deployment is as hopeless as it was.
6) Many units start "frozen" or so underequipped/undertrained that they're practically useless.

About the "no retreat" orders... well, I think they can be easily simulated by setting up many more Red Army units to "Frozen" status (with the already included scenario editor).

And then there's the H2H factor (i.e. game needs to be interesting to both players). Once I played over e-mail TOAW's Barbarossa 41 scenario and it was so boring for both me and my opponent that we were overjoyed when we found out that both wanted to switch to Operation Blau 42 "monster" scenario made by a fan (perhaps the author of that scenario reads these forums: if so, many many thanks for that work).