Matrix Games Forums

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.

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.

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.

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].

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.

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.

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.

America alone sent 5 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.

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.

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.

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]  

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????

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

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

"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.