Proposal to make Russians fight for territory

[carnifex]

I doubt evacuating civilians used any extra train stock at all, nor would they be allowed to if there was a need to move troops and supplies.

[MengJiao]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

ORIGINAL: MengJiao

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa




Or, we could ensure that there are either settings, or scenarios, which provide forces that have the same capabilities as the historical forces, German and Russian, as they existed in 1941. This will not mean that the historic 1941 campaign will be replayed, as players will inevitably wish to try different strategies. It should be possible for the capabilities of these forces to evolve in the game, as they historical did, through 1942/43/44.

This in no way stops other players having available other settings, or scenarios, which give more balanced opposing forces, or any other what-if situations.

This does not have to be a question of either one configuration, or any other, it should be possible, eventually, for all of us to have a game we can enjoy. [:)]

The more reasonable configurations the better. I think it would be better for the morale of Axis players to stop obsessing over how 1941 plays out (eg. the Russians don't
get punished enough for not getting wiped out as badly as they did in the real 1941) and -- if they must have an historical 1941 -- just start in 1942. There
is a 1942 campaign and it guarantees an historical 1941.

You are still failing to understand the point, I don't think anyone wants an historical 1941, but to play with forces that have the capabilities as they existed in 1941 and achieve a different result by trying alternative strategies.

Why ignore 1941 and throw away 25% of the game, when 1941 is potentially the most balanced scenario, as it gives perhaps the only chance the Germans might win (I doubt anyone wants an automatic victory for either side). By 1942 and certainly by 1943 the balance has gone, because the only question becomes how quickly the Russians can get to Berlin.

I don't see how "balance" is a feature of 1941 when the measure of the balanced characteristic is that one side has its one chance to knock the other out in six months at least if it would just sit still and let itself get wiped out ( the "capability" it had in the real 1941) which is what really happened and they still were not knocked out.

This just seems like a recipe for frustration based on the very poor assessment the Germans had of what was going to happen when they attacked Russia: ie the idea that 1941 is balanced is based on the idea that the Germans had a reasonable chance of knocking the USSR out of the war in six months.

The basic problem is that even if the Russians do as badly as they really did (which no decent player is going to do), they still win. I just don't see what there is to get out of that, no matter what you do with "capabilities"...

[MengJiao]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

ORIGINAL: MengJiao

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa




Or, we could ensure that there are either settings, or scenarios, which provide forces that have the same capabilities as the historical forces, German and Russian, as they existed in 1941. This will not mean that the historic 1941 campaign will be replayed, as players will inevitably wish to try different strategies. It should be possible for the capabilities of these forces to evolve in the game, as they historical did, through 1942/43/44.

This in no way stops other players having available other settings, or scenarios, which give more balanced opposing forces, or any other what-if situations.

This does not have to be a question of either one configuration, or any other, it should be possible, eventually, for all of us to have a game we can enjoy. [:)]

The more reasonable configurations the better. I think it would be better for the morale of Axis players to stop obsessing over how 1941 plays out (eg. the Russians don't
get punished enough for not getting wiped out as badly as they did in the real 1941) and -- if they must have an historical 1941 -- just start in 1942. There
is a 1942 campaign and it guarantees an historical 1941.

You are still failing to understand the point, I don't think anyone wants an historical 1941, but to play with forces that have the capabilities as they existed in 1941 and achieve a different result by trying alternative strategies.

Why ignore 1941 and throw away 25% of the game, when 1941 is potentially the most balanced scenario, as it gives perhaps the only chance the Germans might win (I doubt anyone wants an automatic victory for either side). By 1942 and certainly by 1943 the balance has gone, because the only question becomes how quickly the Russians can get to Berlin.

A better plan for a better 1941 would be to make it 1940, beef up the Russians and see if they can take Berlin in six months.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: MengJiao

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

ORIGINAL: MengJiao




The more reasonable configurations the better. I think it would be better for the morale of Axis players to stop obsessing over how 1941 plays out (eg. the Russians don't
get punished enough for not getting wiped out as badly as they did in the real 1941) and -- if they must have an historical 1941 -- just start in 1942. There
is a 1942 campaign and it guarantees an historical 1941.

You are still failing to understand the point, I don't think anyone wants an historical 1941, but to play with forces that have the capabilities as they existed in 1941 and achieve a different result by trying alternative strategies.

Why ignore 1941 and throw away 25% of the game, when 1941 is potentially the most balanced scenario, as it gives perhaps the only chance the Germans might win (I doubt anyone wants an automatic victory for either side). By 1942 and certainly by 1943 the balance has gone, because the only question becomes how quickly the Russians can get to Berlin.

A better plan for a better 1941 would be to make it 1940, beef up the Russians and see if they can take Berlin in six months.

Well start a thread and see if you can get it to fly, in the mean time could we get back to the main point.

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: miller41

As one of the people who has an AAR I hope people don't think I just ran away. I conducted a fighting withdrawal and fought when I had an opportunity and I take exception that anyone thinks the Russian can have a "Fair Fight" with the german army in 41. If you stand and fight for no reason, you will get surrounded and destroyed. Now i have no problem with making things more realistic but remember the Russians made about as many stupid decisions as possible in 41 and I doubt any sensible player will do the same[:D].

A 'sensible' player who wants to understand the challenges actually faced by the real Soviet commanders from late '41 onward might

[Lrfss]

ORIGINAL: Haudrauf1962

I think we saw quite a number of AAR's where the Russians gave away territory without a fight to avoid losses. I think the game does not punish the Russian player sufficiently. Even if you loose towns and cities, a part of the population is beamed star trek like to areas further east.

I think the automatic evacuation feature should be switched of and replaced with a manual one. If the Russian player decides to evacuate population it should cost rail capacity, meaning he has to make a balancing act between moving troops, factories or population to the east. I saw 250,000 people leaving Kiev when it was completely surrounded by German troops. No train would go in such a situation.

So that would also help to balance the enormous Russian manpower and for the Germans it would be even more interesting to capture as many towns as possible while the Russian player would loose a lot of manpower if he decides to retreat fast.

Just an idea - all in all I think the game is great and I am spending a lot of time with it.

[LiquidSky]

The russian army suffered a number of disasters in 1941. A smart player will be able to minimize those disasters. The encirclement at Smolensk/Vyazma. The Kiev encirclement. These two alone will give the Russian player an extra 1M troops. As soon as the game starts, history is changed. Perceived mistakes will be fixed by both players, and it is the Russians who will benefit most from this.

As for 'Balance', it is a game. It has a victory condition, which apparently a lot of you think involves the Germans knocking the Russians out of the war. This is not true. A MINOR Victory can be had by the Germans, by keeping the Russians back at the original start lines. A Draw if you can keep most of Germany.

I am not sure where the myth that Stalin wanted his armies to stand and die (aka Hitler). What Stalin wanted is for the Russian soldier to not retreat in the face of the enemy. At a personal level. What he wanted was for armies that retreat, to destroy anything the enemy might find usefull. He didnt shoot/discipline generals for retreating, he shot them for poor performance.

[Skanvak]

Well, one of the problem with territory loss is not loss of population but loss of food as in WWI. Guns of August does it very well (htough simplistic).

I think that losing territory should impact the Russian hability to feed its population which should result in starvation and eventually lack of supply. The Russian should have the possibility to chossoe to give preference to Army feeding or civilian feeding (resulting in less supply but less death of civilian due to starvation). Historically Stalin let its civilian population starve to death. With a huge army the problem could be far worse.

May that is already model in the game? If not we should research about the impact.

[Zort]

Supply is suppose to do that I think.  I go back to the 'there is too much supply' available.  There is currently no need to concentrate supplies/ammo/fuel over time to start a major operation.

I think there is a simple way to assist in this endeavor.  Since the Soviet has no real need to attack during the winter it seems how about this.  (the next patch should greatly impact the amount of manpower available)

1.  Reduce the blizzard effects on the Germans to the same as Feb for all three months.
2.  and/or Increase the Soviet attrition just a little for the winter.

This will mean that the Germans will be stronger come spring and if the Soviets want to slow down any advance then they should have to attack.  Historical maybe not but the goal is to get the game to 45 with fun had by both sides.  Now to see if the patch does good things. [:D]

[MengJiao]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

ORIGINAL: MengJiao

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa




You are still failing to understand the point, I don't think anyone wants an historical 1941, but to play with forces that have the capabilities as they existed in 1941 and achieve a different result by trying alternative strategies.

Why ignore 1941 and throw away 25% of the game, when 1941 is potentially the most balanced scenario, as it gives perhaps the only chance the Germans might win (I doubt anyone wants an automatic victory for either side). By 1942 and certainly by 1943 the balance has gone, because the only question becomes how quickly the Russians can get to Berlin.

A better plan for a better 1941 would be to make it 1940, beef up the Russians and see if they can take Berlin in six months.

Well start a thread and see if you can get it to fly, in the mean time could we get back to the main point.

My point is that if you want the Russians to have a reason to fight pretty far forward, you might consider a scenario where it makes sense to fight pretty far forward.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

Well, one of the problem with territory loss is not loss of population but loss of food as in WWI. Guns of August does it very well (htough simplistic).

I think that losing territory should impact the Russian hability to feed its population which should result in starvation and eventually lack of supply. The Russian should have the possibility to chossoe to give preference to Army feeding or civilian feeding (resulting in less supply but less death of civilian due to starvation). Historically Stalin let its civilian population starve to death. With a huge army the problem could be far worse.

May that is already model in the game? If not we should research about the impact.

This was mitigated to a large extent by Western aid. America alone sent 5 million tons of food. 3/4 of Soviet aluminium and copper. And on and on. And the Russia of 1941 was not anywhere near the Russia of 1914.

Even with the loss of 2/3rds of grain production, etc, the civilian population did not starve to death. Not on the scale that you seem to imply.

And of course you're going to make the Germans face the same choice? One rather large factor in not taking Leningrad was the fact that the Germans would of had to feed it.

So, now the Germans have a choice too. Take all those cities and feed them. Or not take them and take care of the military.

Such is beyong the game's scope.

[CharonJr]

I like the idea of losing fertile hexes leading to slightly worse supplies for the Soviets, maybe adding a kind of agricultural value to some hexes.

But on the other hand lets see what the next beta patch will do for H2H games, it might be enough already.

[ceyan]

America alone sent 5 million tons of food.

While some level of abbreviation/summary is allowed, you're off the mark by over a million tons of food.

Even with the loss of 2/3rds of grain production, etc, the civilian population did not starve to death. Not on the scale that you seem to imply.

Of course they didn't starve to death in the numbers implied. Why? Because the Soviets fought for the ground and had more time to pull out supplies.

Plus of the millions of Russian civilians on record as dead during the war, a sizable chunk is generally agreed to be attributed to lack of food and heat.

And of course you're going to make the Germans face the same choice? One rather large factor in not taking Leningrad was the fact that the Germans would of had to feed it.

So, now the Germans have a choice too. Take all those cities and feed them. Or not take them and take care of the military.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in my own personal experience and the experience of several players on the forum, taking Leningrad isn't exactly a "Do I take it and feed it, or just pass by?" Its more an issue of a half a million plus Soviets deciding to defend it.

Such is beyong the game's scope.

Of course, the same is true of just about every other game on the subject. And you know how those games deal with it? Restrictions or penalties on the USSR not defending the territory. Notice the difference?

[randallw]

I think the scenarios should be adjusted so that all factories are located in cities west of Moscow, and relocation is not an option; then the Axis fanboys will be happy. [:D]  

[Gandalf]

Other than bonafide bugs, I don't want them to change anything else until the next beta has been released and thoroughly tested for effectiveness (re: Soviet summer/fall '41 strength and Axis TOE/experience fixes)

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: ceyan


Correct me if I'm wrong, but in my own personal experience and the experience of several players on the forum, taking Leningrad isn't exactly a "Do I take it and feed it, or just pass by?" Its more an issue of a half a million plus Soviets deciding to defend it.

OK, you're wrong. The Germans chose not to take it because they didn't want to be stuck with feeding a city of 2 million. But if you want to put things that are beyond the scope of the game, then you have to do it for both sides. You want the Sovs to make a choice between feeding the military and civilians. So why not impose the same thing on the Germans?

Soviet grain production fell by about 66% of 1940 figures. Cattle by 48%. Sheep and goats by 33% Pigs by 78%. That isn't what was removed, that was what was lost.

Why is it that some want to turn this into Railroad Tycoon/Imperialism????

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: randallw

I think the scenarios should be adjusted so that all factories are located in cities west of Moscow, and relocation is not an option; then the Axis fanboys will be happy. [:D]  

Plus make sure the Sovs do everything that they did in 1941. But allow the Axis to avoid all their mistakes.

[Mynok]

The Soviets already can avoid all their mistakes. The Germans can only avoid pushing too hard in the snow. They still get utterly crushed by the winter and getting magically green troops back in 42. I'm very curious to see what the next patch does to alleviate that latter situation. That's the real gamebreaker right now IMO. Getting hard hit by the winter not so much.

[ceyan]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: ceyan


Correct me if I'm wrong, but in my own personal experience and the experience of several players on the forum, taking Leningrad isn't exactly a "Do I take it and feed it, or just pass by?" Its more an issue of a half a million plus Soviets deciding to defend it.

OK, you're wrong. The Germans chose not to take it because they didn't want to be stuck with feeding a city of 2 million. But if you want to put things that are beyond the scope of the game, then you have to do it for both sides. You want the Sovs to make a choice between feeding the military and civilians. So why not impose the same thing on the Germans?

Soviet grain production fell by about 66% of 1940 figures. Cattle by 48%. Sheep and goats by 33% Pigs by 78%. That isn't what was removed, that was what was lost.

Why is it that some want to turn this into Railroad Tycoon/Imperialism????

A) Just like in the other thread, you're still stuck on strategic military solutions. You don't have to address a problem by tackling it directly. Implementing a reason to avoid giving up territory, even if that reason has nothing to do with supplies/railroad capacity/whatever, can work as a solution to the problem.

B) You spouted off a bunch of numbers with absolutely no qualification as to what you're trying to prove. Yay, the USSR took a hit to food production. Not sure exactly how you go the impression we didn't know that, but there you have it.

[Jakerson]

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

Should the Germans also be forced to stand and fight ala Stalingrad? No retreats during the first blizzard?

Yes they should it boring that they give up land without fight. Game really need some Hitler rule that auto execute all retreating German Generals that do not fight for every inch of Soviet territory as Hitler required mobile defence was historically out of question.

Hitler ordered Historically that German troops have no right to retreat at all at winter 41-42. Hitler beleaved that his order of not allowing retreat at all actually saved army group center from collapse.

"In the winter of 1941–42 Hitler believed that his obstinate refusal to allow the German armies to retreat had saved Army Group Centre from collapse. He later told Erhard Milch,

I had to act ruthlessly. I had to send even my closest generals packing, two army generals, for example ... I could only tell these gentlemen, "Get yourself back to Germany as rapidly as you can — but leave the army in my charge. And the army is staying at the front."

The success of this hedgehog defence outside Moscow led Hitler to insist on the holding of territory when it made no military sense, and to sack generals who retreated without orders. Officers with initiative were replaced with yes-men or fanatical Nazis. The disastrous encirclements later in the war — at Stalingrad, Korsun and many other places — were the direct result of Hitler's orders. This idea of holding territory led to another failed plan, dubbed "Heaven-bound Missions", which involved fortifying even the most unimportant or insignificant of cities and the holding of these "fortresses" at all costs. Many divisions became cut off in "fortress" cities, or wasted uselessly in secondary theatres, because Hitler would not sanction retreat or abandon voluntarily any of his conquests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Fr ... _War_II%29

It is totally un-historical that German players can pull back in Blizzard without any penalties disobeying direct order from Hitler himself and there is a lot of historical evidence that Hitler would have never allow pull back without a fight and penalties for doing so would have been swift and hard.