Possible PBEM house rules for turns 25-41

[Senno]

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

The time to start the real game is closing in for me and my usual opponent. We have tested enough and if we don’t start the big campaign soon, there’s a distinct danger of deteriorating general interest in WitE. So we just can’t wait for the blizzard issue to be decided. However, having followed the many threads about the weather and all it’s consequences, we have decided to try a house rule of ourselves.

The suggestion in the beginning of this thread wasn’t bad, but we felt that it imposed an unecessary amount of extra micro-management for the Soviet player. Instead of imposing restrictions on Fronts, we will therefore do it on game turns. The period between turn 25 and 37 will be divided into a number of Soviet ”attack turns” and ”passive turns”. Thus there will be a number of turns when the Soviet player are prohibited from initializing any ground attacks at all.

How to decide? Easy, the Soviet player will do that himself, paying a certain cost for each turn that he wants to attack. The price, paid in the currency ”Attack points”, for certain turns will be as follows:

Turn 25-28 = 6 Attack points
Turn 29-32 = 4 Attack points
Turn 33-37 = 3 Attack points

When GT 25 starts the Soviet player will have 40 Attack points to spend at his desire.

In addition to this – just to add a little spice and make the Soviet player a little uncertain – the German player will have the option to declare a one-time Attack-free Soviet turn whenever he likes, starting with turn 26 and ending with turn 34. If the German player opt for this, however, he must pay to the Soviet player the number of Attack points that the Soviet player should have paid if he were to initiate an Attack Turn in his segment (example: an Attack-free Soviet turn declared by the German player on turn 30, would increase the number of Soviet Attack Dollars with ”4”).

I’m posting this to help others getting ideas for house rules of their own, and also for feedback from players who have been through the blizzard and may detect problems with our rule.

If that's what you guys are comfortable with, then have at it.

I'm not sure I could accept the "no atttack" rule from turns 26 to 34, but whatever floats your house-rules boat, mate.

[Uxbridge]

The no attack is just so that the Soviet player can't be absolutely sure that he may attack next turn. The German player will be reluctant to use this card, since it will make sure that his opponent gain more attack turns overall. But it might come in handy if some really nasty encirclement looms large.

[Senno]

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

The no attack is just so that the Soviet player can't be absolutely sure that he may attack next turn. The German player will be reluctant to use this card, since it will make sure that his opponent gain more attack turns overall. But it might come in handy if some really nasty encirclement looms large.

Probably so. If I had it I'd probably wait until I was around Moscow, or Leningrad; hopefully both.

Be interesting to know if it works for you guys though. Play and report?

[Q-Ball]

This is an interesting idea, though it's tough to say if that's the right way to go. Bob knows as well as anyone, so I'm willing to try it. It is an artificial way to re-create the real Soviet limitations.

In general, I would like to see more players post AARs. A full AAR allows for good data and input, and seeing the whole AAR we can also judge if there is a fair matchup in opponents (because when there isn't, you really can't and shouldn't draw conclusions from that)

[Klydon]

This looks like a great stop gap to deal with the game as it is now while things are being discussed and worked on for a more long term fix. Well done sir!

This may also be something a Russian player vs AI may also want to impose as a self limit as well.

[Altaris]

I've been tossing around a house rule idea of only allowing the Soviets to do hasty attacks during blizzard. This would mostly even out the CV hit the Germans take, which is the most unnecessary and unbalancing aspect of blizzard effects, IMHO. It's also an extremely simple one to implement. Strong defensive chokepoints should be viable for the Germans in this type of situation, since at most the Soviets can only bring 3 units to bear on an attack.

[Panama]

Historically the Soviets envisioned a limited offensive to drive the Germans back from Moscow. When that offensive met with resounding success it was realized the Germans were in dire straights. The offensive was changed from a limited offensive to a general offensive. As was typical of Stalin in '41 and most of '42 his ambitions exceeded his army's capability. The result was many formations becoming isolated when the Germans were able to recover before winter's end. From what I've been reading on these forums, the Soviets are doing almost as well as Stalin had historically hoped. If AGC is destroyed Stalin's goals are achieved.

[Klydon]

The "only hasty attack" idea may not be bad, but unfortunately, the Axis units are not able to hold up against even hasty attacks in the vast majority of cases.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
On the other hand, it's also true that my opponent halted operations for 8 turns.

Attacking in mud cuts your CV at one eigthth (1/8) of the original strength. Who would not halt operations under those circumstances? I tried to prove myself it can be done (attacking in mud) and my 16 CV units were not able to dislodge 1=1 ant....

Those 8 turns include 2 turns of clear and two turns of snow, man. My opponent just did what the "most successful" Axis AAR's were doing...

[Altaris]

I still think that the hasty attack only has some merit. That's an auto 1/2 reduction in Soviet CV. I think part of the problem with hasty attacks being so successful right now is that there's already been a few deliberate attacks to soften things up.

There's also a huge difference in the condition of an attacker after a hasty attack as opposed to a deliberate one. Fatigue really ramps up quickly with hasties, which might help to curtail how long Russians can sustain an offensive.

It makes sense in a game framework as well... pretty hard to make a coordinated, well planned deliberate attack in winter conditions.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Altaris

I still think that the hasty attack only has some merit. That's an auto 1/2 reduction in Soviet CV. I think part of the problem with hasty attacks being so successful right now is that there's already been a few deliberate attacks to soften things up.

There's also a huge difference in the condition of an attacker after a hasty attack as opposed to a deliberate one. Fatigue really ramps up quickly with hasties, which might help to curtail how long Russians can sustain an offensive.

It makes sense in a game framework as well... pretty hard to make a coordinated, well planned deliberate attack in winter conditions.

I wouldn't want to prevent Soviets, though, from being able to demolish stacked-up units.

[Altaris]

Keep in mind that Soviets get a +1 final odds modifier on their rolls too, which helps offset the drop in their CV from the hasty attack. So let's say they attack with a 10 CV stack against a 4 CV German stack. The hasty attack makes that 5:4 CV values, so 1.2 odds, but with the +1, that becomes 2.2 odds, easily in retreat mode. But at least there's a chance the Germans could block this off, as opposed to getting hit by 2 10 CV stacks in a deliberate attack and getting 20:4 (or 5.0) odds, which is guaranteed demolishing.

[Uxbridge]

Even if limiting Soviet attacks to hasty ones doesn't solve the basic problem, it does hamper the Soviet player a bit. I like it. Therefore I will add the following to my house rule:

Soviet player have 40 attack points to begin with and pays:

Turn 25-28 = 6 Attack points/turn to make only hasty attacks.
Turn 29-32 = 4 Attack points/turn to make only hasty attacks.
Turn 33-37 = 3 Attack points/turn to make only hasty attacks.
An additional 2 Attack points for every turn that he also wants to make deliberate attacks.

Now he really has to think! [:)]

[Oleg Mastruko]

Limiting any side to just hasty attacks is very unfair (also unrealistic). I am all for better balance in winter, but I don't think that's the right way...

[Uxbridge]

No, I didn't limit it to hasty attacks, only made it more costly to achieve deliberate attacks.

[cookie monster]

Why not just cry MERCY! when he's shoved you back too far/too fast. Report the game. Then settle down and wait for Spring. Wouldnt need to restart if the game was put on hold the moment it becomes unrealistic.

[Altaris]

Well, the idea for the hasty attack came to mind as an easy way to even out the auto-CV reduction the Germans get (which I think is the only real problem, the morale and attrition losses are bad enough to mirror historical, IMO). Keep in mind that the German can still have even more CV reduction if the leader roll fails.

That's the basis for where I started this idea. I also like it since it limits how many units a Soviet can throw into the attack during blizzard. Coordinating between 10 mile hexes during the blizzard should be impossible, IMO.

[bednarre]

ORIGINAL: cookie monster

Why not just cry MERCY! when he's shoved you back too far/too fast. Report the game. Then settle down and wait for Spring. Wouldnt need to restart if the game was put on hold the moment it becomes unrealistic.

Too bad it seems the 1942 Scenario is also unrealistic.

[cookie monster]

I played the 42 scenario as the Soviets as my first real game and found it quite good.

What dont you like about it?

[Zemke]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

Disclaimer: These ideas are from Bob the gamer, not Bob the tester, and are not supported or endorsed by 2by3 or Matrix.

The more I look at the threads and AARs relating to the infamous First Winter, and the more I analyse my own playing of the game, the more I feel there needs to be some limit on the SU's ability to attack and advance during the blizzard. If you look at what happened historically you may start to understand why the game engine sometimes struggles to cope with the pressure put upon it.

In AGN's sector the Soviets recovered the equivalent of 50 hexes from Tikhvin to the Volkov and around Demyansk.

AGC lost the Equivalent of 300 hexes - Kalinin/Moscow/Tula/Voronezh back to VL/Rzhev/Orel/Kharkov.

AGS retreated from Rostov to Mius line, giving up about 50 hexes.

So overall the Axis lost about 400 hexes or 33 per turn. In most AARs we are seeing reports of 60+ attacks in the early turns that produced retreats, dropping to about 40 per turn, and this is broadly in line with what I saw in testing.

Within the current game mechanics I cannot see the "magic switch" that will reduce the SU's ability to attack and recover territory. So while we wait for 2by3 to figure this out the following House Rules could be a solution, and do represent many of the historical realities of the First Winter.

By turn 25 the SU has 8 Fronts in Action. To reflect to Logistic and command difficulties the soviets had at the time, players could agree to the following rules:

1: During turns 25-27 the soviets may attack with 4 fronts.
2: During turns 28-34 the soviets may attack with 3 fronts.
3: During turns 35-37 the soviets may attack with 2 fronts.
4: No Front can attack for more than 3 turns in row - i.e. they must rest every 4th turn.
5: On turn 38 the Axis can attack with 1 Army Group.
6: On turn 39 the Axis can attack with 2 Army groups
7: On turns 40 and 41 the Axis can attack with 3 Army groups.

There will be gamey ways to get around the restrictions by transferring armies between fronts etc., but these will cost large amounts of APs, but from the Axis perspective this is OK.

As the Soviet I would play anyone with those restrictions, but players could obviously adapt them to reflect their relative abilities and experience, and the state of the front line at the start of the First Winter.

What do you think?

edit: can't add up!

I think these house rules are great for all new PBEM games and current PBEM games that have not reached turn 25.