Matrix Games Forums

The only thing that the Germans would have captured in Moscow was a burnt out city which would have provided absolutely no solace for the brutal winter that was to come.

Damn... it's not as if this was the first time someone had tried to defeat them by taking Moscow, why on earth would they react any differently.

I say give the Russians a moral bonus for losing Moscow. It would have only pissed them off even more.

Don't get me wrong, but there are far more implications to the Russians in losing Moscow in 1941 than to the French in the 1800's.

The biggest difference is there are rail roads, of which Moscow is a huge hub for. The second biggest is that as a center of logistics, command and control, the loss of Moscow would have hurt the Russians as well.

The Germans were looking to capture Moscow from the standpoint that in their opinion, it would have split the Russian front into two parts; north and south with them in the center and the Russians have a far more difficult time being able to react to any German moves against one side or the other. 

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Don't get me wrong, but there are far more implications to the Russians in losing Moscow in 1941 than to the French in the 1800's.

The biggest difference is there are rail roads, of which Moscow is a huge hub for. The second biggest is that as a center of logistics, command and control, the loss of Moscow would have hurt the Russians as well.

The Germans were looking to capture Moscow from the standpoint that in their opinion, it would have split the Russian front into two parts; north and south with them in the center and the Russians have a far more difficult time being able to react to any German moves against one side or the other. 

So the effect of this is shown by the Red Army's inability to use the rail hub of Moscow, it shouldn't need any further "rules" to show this.

I think a morale penalty would be enough, 5 each for Moscow/Leningrad etc but 15 if both are lost. I would imagine an increasing disenchantment with the Soviet system is too many major cities fall. (Maybe the Tsar wasnt all that bad!)

Historically,
except for the turn south to Kiev, key German generals such as Mainstein in Lost Victories argue the Wehrmacht had a chance in 1941 except for Hitler's orders.
This also, if one agrees with Suvorov, was also due to Stalin placing the Soviet armies in the wrong posiitons in 1941 as he prepared to attack Germany, allowing them to be surrounded and destroyed by the Germans.
I therefore believe two things:
1 - for the sake of the Game and historical accuracy, a good German player should have the chance of reaching Moscow in 1941 and winning the war.

The counter-point to "The Germans could've won in 1941 if only Hitler didn't give some of the orders he did" is that "The Soviets wouldn't have lost as much as they did in 1941 if only Stalin didn't give some of the orders he did"

An overarching theme of the arguments towards game balance revolve around the idea that the Germans aren't getting as far as they were historically without taking into account the fact that the historical Soviet player was really bad at Real-WITE's first year. Just because the Panzers are freed from the shackles of politics doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to be able to drive onto Moscow that much more easily, because the Rifle Divisions have earned their freedom (to run) as well.

Here's my two cents. I'm as bad an amateur historian as ever to post on such a forum, but I'm speaking to the kind of game I want to play.

It would be foolish to play a game that didn't have some sort of Axis first turn surprise bonus.  WITE does, and it's a good one.
It would be ridiculous to have a game that didn't have an "Hey Hans, did you know how cold it gets in Russia in January?" penalty.  WiTE does and it's a good one.  They have really interesting effects on gameplay choices you make (well the latter at least, use your own metaphor for the Soviets on turn 1, please), and these affect 1942 a lot.

I think it's unwise not to have incentives for the Axis to concentrate on one or more of Moscow/Leningrad/Stalingrad.  I think if you take Moscow (or one of the others) during 1941, even if it's in a Blizzard turn and you lose it the next, the Soviets ought to have a penalty to something (don't ask me about balance any more than you would about history, please!).  That would be a fun game to play.  Something like loss of admin points, or a drain/tax on their supply production/distribution.  Imagine if you lose Moscow and you can't create units for a month (or something equally interesting on balance).  RIght now the incentives are not strong enough for the Axis, so you get a game where East front attrition might be too heavily incentivized.  (Take Moscow, soviets can't attack the next turn? Just thinking out loud. Imagine taking Moscow the turn before the Blizzard... Take Leningrad, lose half your AP per turn for X turns... dunno)

I don't think, given that the invasion of Russia was delayed and complicated by Yugoslavia/Greece, by the Axis Minors being unready/unwilling to engage in total war from the opening day, or the weather of that particular year, I don't think it's plausible that Stalin would have been deposed, or the Soviets to be truly defeated and capitulate before the summer of 1942.  I certainly don't think a game that sees the Soviets surrender in 1941 would be particularly fun.  Games that incentivize early capitulation aren't great for this genre, where you invest a lot of energy in each turn.  But I could handle losing by 1942 as the Soviet, if the German really kept me off balance all year.

So to me, a "decisive" Axis victory isn't something that happens before 1942 anyway.  And given the advantages the human Soviet has in dealing with the game mechanics that real-world operational commanders can't exploit, like zones of control, and conversion of friendly territory, the Soviet does have a significant edge over his historical counterpart.

Incentives that rewarded clever Axis strategy could, and I think should be introduced to the game.  These incentives balance the fact that Soviet players can exploit things like I've just mentioned.  These incentives would, to me, be best left to affect the 1942 sequence of events.

I think if the German doesn't win the decisive in 1942 (and by end of 1942 is an interesting comparison since that's when the Stalingrad debacle was sealed), the game has to replicate the attrition advantages of the Soviet, and thus, the manpower crunch forcing Germany ever west to defend the homeland.  That's the only way to abstract the other theaters of the war, I think, and the lack of strategic control this game allows either side.  Arguably, the Soviet has strategic control of the long game, by virtue of being able to create whole units.  ANd the German becomes ever more hampered by the uselessness of his so-called Allies.

Oh, yeah, I want a random Finnish no-attack/no-move line, that the Soviet cannot see.  That the Finns have a gentleman's agreement 's a horrible exploit that Stalin couldn't count on.

And I'm thinking, from my experience defending as Soviet, that the swamp defense might be a serious balance issue. I've seen some crappy Soviet divisions hold off massive amounts of German quality infantry with support.  Multiple times.  I felt bad for the German.

WiTE as is, is an outstanding wargame design achievement. Even so, we, the gamers, do benefit from hindsight. No German player is going to "go for broke" trying to take Moscow ala Typhoon with a blizzard fast approaching. Nor is a Russian going to keep pushing troops west right into easily formed pockets. Unless.....there was some reason to do so. If there was just a chance, maybe 10% or so that if Moscow falls, it generates a Soviet collapse, would provide enough incentive for a German to "go for broke" and seize the city late in '41 at the expense of digging in an preparing for the blizzard - throw Leningrad and Kiev into the mix adding 5% for each, and then....might really get the Germans to stick his neck in the noose. Now, knowing that this is a possibility, this might force the Soviets (I'm talking PBEM here by the way), to send more forces west to slow the Germans down instead of playing Sir Robin until the Germans begin to run their supply dry.

That's another thing, the game ought to be balanced for Player vs. Player, because that's when the possibilities truly shine.  

This is why I proposed "Hitler Directives" and "Stalin Directives," hidden to the opponent, that force the players to fight for certain computer-determined objectives, or lose significant victory points for each turn they fail (up to a set amount).
 
What is also needed is a hypothetical scenario beginning on 15 May, the original start date for the campaign. As it turned out there were fairly substantial rains between then and June 22, but those wanting to see if Russia could be defeated with a longer campaign season could find such a scenario entertaining.
 
In a good design, a historical start with historical hindsight on both sides should produce historical results. And this game comes pretty close to it, especially if the German player uses the HQ Buildup more than twice. In human vs human games this leads to quite historical lines/accomplishments no matter what the Soviet player tries to do to slow down the Germans.

I think it's unwise not to have incentives for the Axis to concentrate on one or more of Moscow/Leningrad/Stalingrad.

Leningrad has plenty to recommend it as a target: You shorten your lines, free up your panzers for AGC/AGS, and the excellent winter capabilities of the Finnish troops let you survive the Blizzards with that much more forces intact. One consideration though is that for all that, Leningrad also has plenty to make its defenses impenetrable.

Stalingrad by itself probably doesn't have all that much going for it, but a southward drive does have its appeal, because a LOT of Soviet manpower comes from there.

Finally, I agree that Moscow doesn't have enough to make it an enticing target, even if we grant that the Soviet player will also lose a significant amount of manpower.

And I'm thinking, from my experience defending as Soviet, that the swamp defense might be a serious balance issue

I believe this is going to be fixed in the next patch. Apparently swamps (and certain other rough terrain types) were lumped in with heavy urban hexes that doubled the defense potential.

The short answer to the question is "no". Too much is known of the war and, in another short answer, unless the USSR collapsed politically ("when we kick the door in the whole rotten house will collapse" paraphrasing what the little corporal said, and in the end that was the victory condition that they couldn't get), then Germany simply had zero chance. Germany had a population of around 75 million; the USSR had close to 200 million. Germany was at war with pretty much the entire Western world, and though victorious to that point still had the burden of occupation and defense of its conquests, while the USSR had nothing but allies or at worst neutral nations around it. The USSR was a scientific and industrial power by 1941, though not nearly as advanced as a nation as Germany it wasn't Ethiopia to be kicked around by an old world power. The German philosophy and motivation precluded offering self determination to any of the people in the USSR; this would be a campaign of conquest with no quarter given. And the USSR was huge, much too large to simply overrun and occupy in a 'shock and awe' campaign as earlier victories had been.

So I have to agree with the other posters here, looking to "win" in the classic sense of conquering is not in the cards. The game is too accurate a reflection of history to have that happen.

That said it could be a [:(]. But it's not for a few reasons. First is Russian Front gamers in general know all this, and the play is the thing! Yeah yeah I'll get my butt kicked but $%& *@#$@& I will take Moscow! [:D] The fun is in the play. Second are scenarios; they can be designed to give the Germans a chance to "win". Third is the (hopefully) evolution of optional rules (as others have mentioned). They can be both historically feasible and have an impact.

Just for grins two campaign options that have crossed my mind are:

1) German Total War. German industry was (despite the efficient-German stereotype) both rather inefficient and not dedicated to war production to nearly the extent it could have been. "Total war" production wasn't really given priority until after Stalingrad in 1943. What if that had happened earlier? Speer in charge of rationalizing industry in 1940 could have hugely increased output. Easy to implement as well, simply up the APs and reinforcement/replacement schedule.

2) Stalin in Charge. In the past twenty years it's come to light that the Soviet "trade land for time" as a strategy was a myth propagated by the communist party after the war to put a better light on earlier defeats: "Yeah, that's it... we meant to lose all those cities and resources to draw the Germans into a trap. Yeah, that's the ticket!" [:D] In 1941 and 1942 the RKKA was constantly counter attacking, with large forces, under the direct orders of STAVKA to "do something!" to stop the German advance. The battles (Colonel Glantz has monographs titled "Forgotten Battles of the German-Soviet War" that document them, based on translations of RKKA archives opened up when the USSR fell), were largely disastrous for the Russians. When the Wehrmacht wasn't gutting the Red Army the Red Army was busy doing it themselves in useless attacks! In the game, of course, the Soviet player won't launch his brand new armies into the teeth of the advancing panzers. But what if an optional rule implemented "Stalin's Dictates"; on any given turn 'n' attacks with 'm' divisions/manpower/whatever MUST be launched by the Soviet? If they're not, Generals get sacked, VP are lost, whatever. Maybe simply an out right "you lose!" Nothing says the attacks must fail, but as we know in general attacking with the Soviets in 1941 results in more tears for the Russians than Germans.

Anyway, two ideas to make the Germans more competitive in the Campaign.

PS. Just read von Beanie's post. What he said! [:)]

How close have people got to Leningrad?
Who has reached the suburbs of Moscow by the 10th of December 1941 as the Germans did?

I captured Leningrad and got 1 hex of Moscow by 1 December in a test game against Trey, and Leningrad has been taken in at least one other PBEM AAR.

So I have to agree with the other posters here, looking to "win" in the classic sense of conquering is not in the cards. The game is too accurate a reflection of history to have that happen.

Yeah, it seems that in this case the idea of simulating history and the idea of game balance are pulling apart from each other. A fair game (depending on your definition) could give the Germans a decent chance of making it all the way to the Soviet capital, whereas a realistic game (depending on how much alt-history wiggle room you're willing to give) probably wouldn't result in such a scenario.

Maybe more people should play the Operation Barbarossa scenario. This is specifically designed so the Axis can ignore the Blizzard (It lasts 25turns) and the VPs are based on the actual OKH objectives for the first 6 months.

This really is the opportunity for the Germans to go all out, and then see how they match up to what was expected of their historical counterparts.

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

How close have people got to Leningrad?

I captured Leningrad and got 1 hex of Moscow by 1 December in a test game against Trey

From my current campaign game against sitito:


T13_Leningrando_Ops

The date is September 11th 1941, patch 1.03 beta 2. He's forgone the conventional wisdom approach of first isolating Leningrad and has been crushing my fort 3-4 defences rotating infantry and doing 1 or 2 deliberate attacks per turn supported by 1000+ guns. Either that or multiple hasty attacks followed by one deliberate attack. I think I made the mistake of defending too stubbornly the land routes to Leningrad and the Ladoga - Ilmen line along the Volkhov river. Too bad [;)]

He's one of the few people I have seen around who actually knows how to use effectively German infantry and support. Most people tend to relegate Landsers and artillery to a mere "flank security" role for the Panzers.

I have ground down the Leningrad defenders "the hard way" before, bit it takes a ton of infantry and quite a bit of time while you are doing it. At some point, it comes down to either a 3 hex attack across the Neva into a urban hex or a 2 hex attack across the Neva into the clear hex just west of the city. Get control of either of those hexes as the German and it truly becomes a matter of time after that.

Unfortunately for the German above, it is into September already and there are a pile of Russians he is likely not getting rid of on the west side of the Volkhov. Anything he is gaining in Leningrad he will likely give back when the Russians counter attack during the Blizzard and either those troops get cut off from the south or pull back.

How on earth did he let the Finns below the no-attack line?

As BigAnorak said "Maybe more people should play the Operation Barbarossa scenario. This is specifically designed so the Axis can ignore the Blizzard (It lasts 25turns) and the VPs are based on the actual OKH objectives for the first 6 months.

This really is the opportunity for the Germans to go all out, and then see how they match up to what was expected of their historical counterparts."

This is the concept that the campaign currently lacks - the "kick in the door, the hole regime collapse" possibility that changes the feel of the game in the campaign. If this could somehow be implemented into the campaign - to continue on potentially through to the end of war, but maintain the original German objectives just till end Dec 41 for a Soviet collapse. If the Germans do not achieve this, the war grinds on. But if they achieve lets say that Decisive Victory for the Barbarossa Scenario victory conditions, game over.

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

As BigAnorak said "Maybe more people should play the Operation Barbarossa scenario. This is specifically designed so the Axis can ignore the Blizzard (It lasts 25turns) and the VPs are based on the actual OKH objectives for the first 6 months.

This really is the opportunity for the Germans to go all out, and then see how they match up to what was expected of their historical counterparts."

This is the concept that the campaign currently lacks - the "kick in the door, the hole regime collapse" possibility that changes the feel of the game in the campaign. If this could somehow be implemented into the campaign - to continue on potentially through to the end of war, but maintain the original German objectives just till end Dec 41 for a Soviet collapse. If the Germans do not achieve this, the war grinds on. But if they achieve lets say that Decisive Victory for the Barbarossa Scenario victory conditions, game over.

A nice idea, but if that's what the German player wants, then the Barbarossa scenario is all they should try for that objective.

The problem with creating a decisive victory that the Germans can achieve in 1941 is one of gameplay. If it's possible to do, then it creates a lopsided year of play that the Soviet player doesn't get a lot of fun out of. It's a one-dimensional game: German offense/Soviet defense. He plays his 30 or so turns, loses, and it probably wasn't fun because the German took historically implausible paths to that early decisive victory.

And if the German player tries for that early, 1941 decisive victory, but doesn't get it, then from a gameplay standpoint, he's probably compromised his game in such a way that it will hurt him the rest of the war. For example, he over-extends in mud/snow and doesn't achieve the Decisive, at which point he can expect to be brutalized in Blizzard, possibly worse than historical, for having dared to achieve the "Typhoon Collapse" and failing. This encourages him to walk away from the PBEM at some point and say "I lost too much in 1941, and now you'll be in Poland by 43".

These are my opinions, of course.
I don't know if any of you guys played Starcraft, but there was this strategy called the "6-pool rush" where a zerg player could try to quickly get the first six combat units out and attack the other player when 6 outnumbered him pretty well if he didn't assume the zerg was trying that strategy. If the zerg was right and the other player hadn't prepared, the game usually was won there early by the zerg. If the zerg was wrong, and the other player prepared, the zerg had so compromised his strategic prospects that he had no choice to surrender right there -he couldn't make up for the macro-economic hit the strategy required as an opportunity cost of choosing that strategy against an opponent who prepared. Basically, the 6-pool was an all-in for one side or the other. I'm afraid a 1941 decisive victory/game-over instantly model will create such a tradeoff as that.

It's beautiful in concept to have a system that encourages the Axis to go for the historical objectives. But I think Axis decisive victory shouldn't be allowed to happen before somewhere in late 1942, strictly for gameplay balance reasons, and because I think the idea that the Soviets would cease to fight with any effectiveness when Moscow falls is misguided historically.

This is why I want game mechanics, "Events" if you will, that if you take this or that, it restricts the Soviets in a way that benefits Germany's 1942 operational advantages.

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

How close have people got to Leningrad?
Who has reached the suburbs of Moscow by the 10th of December 1941 as the Germans did?

I captured Leningrad and got 1 hex of Moscow by 1 December in a test game against Trey, and Leningrad has been taken in at least one other PBEM AAR.

I took Leningrad in a PBEM game. Tried a right-hook around Lake Ilmen with 2nd Army, 16th Army and 3rd Pz Gp, augmented by part of 2nd Pz Gp. Meanwhile 4th Pz Gp and 18th Army advanced (bludgeoned its way) along the coast straight for the city.

The right-hook petered out in the bad terrain, after driving out (but not occupying Tikhivin). My opponent had railed massive numbers of reserves up there, and my supply lines were fairly extended at the time. However, the threat of encirclement had allowed me to reach the Neva and operationally isolate Leningrad. The city was still supplied, but split off from the rest of the Soviet armies as it was historically.

After Leningrad was cut off, I focused 4th Pz Group on breaking across the Neva to the east of the city, and captured the port supplying Leningrad. Then, the city fell by a number of deliberate attacks by the 18th Army and 4th Pz Group, freeing the Finns. It was a nail-biter of a campaign, as the mud was just about to hit. Tough to do, but possible, given the strategic focus is set on the task, from the beginning.

There seems to be some debate and ideas with the freedom-of-politics in this game. It is a pretty good point, to stand out the fact that the Russian army now has a competent high-command leadership in 1941 (equal PBEM or AI). The same applies to Germans, but one fact remain a bit of a mystery(IRL) - what if the Germans would have done the "liberation from tyranny" -sort of offensive?

This should have at least some effect to indrustial manpower and, most important, the partisans! The idea of ´liberating´ people from tyranny has seemed to work pretty well, even in 21st century, so it would be safe to say that population in occupied areas shouldn´t be too hard to put to work aganist Soviet Union, given that Germans would not commit attrocities to civilian or POW´s. Instead try some propaganda stuff.

Im well satisfied to this game as it is. Just my 2 cents...