Is the game biased towards the Soviet side?

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: DorianGray

ORIGINAL: glvaca

In short, tanks ruled WW2. WW2 without tanks would have been WWI part 2. To claim tanks were just exploitation weapons is _really_ questionable and disputed by the whole history of WW2. To go even one step further and claim that infantry could actually do the job better and didn't really need tanks, ie. the Soviet inf. corps can be used to push out panzer divisions by applying AT weapons is really plain wrong. Everywhere and always panzer divisions were thrown into the line they stopped the Soviet attacks and often counter attack with great effect and large losses for the Soviets. AT guns or not. Do you think it was the infantry in the Panzer divs that did that? Common mate, you can't be serious.

I don't know if I can agree with your conclusion of "tanks ruled WW2". I would argue it was the concept of "combined arms doctrine" which was the foundation of blitzkrieg. The close coordination and support of each of the major combat types (armor, infantry, artillery, air) is really what ruled WW2. And, to Germany's credit, they seemed to have mastered this to a much greater proficiency than their counterparts. So much so that the German armored formations were more efficiently used and required much less armor in their TOE.

As far as tanks advancing on their own with little or no support from the other combat arms, I'm not aware of this being widely done to much success.

Mark, I think you're misquoting me a bit here. [;)]
As stated above, it's the whole package. However, if you look at WWI, all the other elements of combined arms warfare were already there (obviously with technology of the period), it was the tank that broke the deadlock and if you take it away it would have been trench warfare till the end.

The lesson of WW1 is that arty & infantry cannot prevail against deep trenches and machine guns. So trying to make the point that Soviet infantry corps don't need tanks in support or that tanks didn't decisively contribute in offensive operations as a weapon is, in my opinion not correct.

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

No matter what historical fact is that 80% of casulties came from Artillery fire rest 20% from tanks and small arms.

Artillery is that tells how much damage you can make other stuff is there just to provide the hit points.

I'm not sure it's 80%. However, again, arty & infantry without tanks leads to WW1 trenches.

[glvaca]

ComradeP,

We seem to be inching closer together.
So just to cement a few things:
1. Tanks work better with combined arms. Which is what the Panzer divs were. The Germans develloped this and perfected this so we all agree here.
2. Tanks need infantry to work best. No arguement, panzer divs did have the most infantry organically. It was part of the doctrine.
3. All the usual blablabla we agree on, I think

The core of the issue is whether tanks actually contributed more than just exploitation? Did they aid the advance of the Soviet infantry Corps in a decisive way? Could the infantry Corps just as well do their thing without tanks?

Here it _seems_ we disagree. If I understand your position correctly, you argue that the effect of tanks in an infantry supportive role is negligable and that the Soviet inf. Corps can just as well do without.
Secondly, tanks (as in panzer divisions, as in the whole division not just the tanks of the panzer division) in panzer divs and TC, cannot by themselves establish breakthroughs and cause a lot of casualties because they lack organic infantry.

Is that my correct understanding? Let's focus the discussion, otherwise there's not really much point to it.

As to Normandy, here to we are coming closer together. But that's some sort of a way from having few tanks, to tanks being ineffective because of no infantry support and that infantry would have done the job without tanks.

Thanks for replying!

Edit: refined question

[Captain]

In a typical attack, tanks/SP guns were used in an infantry support role.

For example, if you look at the Canadian Army in Normandy, which I am more familiar with, a typical attack would look like this.

1. artillery barrage to prep enemy positions, which would then "lift" to seal off the battlefield from reinforcements;
2. infantry would then attack the enemy positions. They would be supported by plain Shermans to provide direct fire support to take out enemy bunkers/MG nests;
3. Once the objective was secured, infantry would dig in, bring up AT guns, Wolverines/Fireflys would move up to cover potential enemy attack lines and the Shermans would retire.

A typical Soviet attack in 43/44 was similar, although SP guns, would provide direct fire support.

An attack would rarely be made by AFVs alone or by AFVs leading, since they were vulnerable to AT guns, mines, etc.

[ComradeP]

The core of the issue is whether tanks actually contributed more than just exploitation? Did they aid the advance of the infantry in a decisive way? Could the infantry just as well do their thing without tanks?

&

Here it _seems_ we disagree. If I understand your position correctly, you argue that the effect of tanks in an infantry supportive role is negligable.
Secondly, tanks (as in panzer divisions, as in the whole division not just the tanks of the panzer division) in panzer divs and TC, cannot by themselves establish breakthroughs and cause a lot of casualties.

My argument comes down to that a tank in an infantry support role isn't really making use of the tanks primary asset: mobility. If you use a tank as an armoured 57mm/75mm/76mm/85mm gun (to use the most common mid/late war calibres), you're wasting the mobility. You get a slow advance. Sure, the infantry probably appreciates it, but you might as well be using an assault gun for the same job, also because within no time some tanks will be brewing up because their frontal armour normally can't withstand prolonged fights.

In that case, to continue the link in the discussion to fighting in the west, you end up fighting like the Western Allies: you move the tanks in with the infantry, either the infantry or the tanks start taking losses and refuse to go further, reinforcements are called in. The result is a situation where a potentially very small enemy force, a few squads well equipped with MG's and Panzerfausts and an (self-propelled)AT gun, for example, can slow the advance down significantly, because the tanks are forced to stick to the infantry.

What the Germans understood well was that tanks were not made for that kind of thing. If the tanks encounter stiff dug-in resistance, you let them go somewhere else and let the infantry fight the enemy. You don't start banging your head against entrenched positions, a situation where tanks are just big targets.

In game terms, this means that when mobile units attack well entrenched units, they can suffer, but generally speaking when they attack some, say, Rifle division that has already been displaced by the infantry, the Soviets are going to take a beating, although losses can still be somewhat unimpressive (no argument there, I've made a couple of suggestions on the tester forum for improving casualties caused by mobile units).

If tanks attack well entrenched positions, they're probably at their most vulnerable.

Think of it like this: you have infantry and tanks at your disposal, in separate units, and you encounter an enemy position, knowing that both forces could dislodge the enemy. You could attack the position with your infantry, removing the enemy from their positions and then send your still fresh tanks after them, or you could send your tanks in to fight the enemy and then...order your infantry to walk after the enemy? The latter option isn't going to do you much good. The enemy will have plenty of time to reorganize as the infantry you send after them is easily slowed down by a couple of delaying actions.

[KenchiSulla]

Nice insights ComradeP, and nicely put...

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
If tanks attack well entrenched positions, they're probably at their most vulnerable.

Good point. However, does the game take into account the different roles of tanks and SPGs? Or are they all treated in combat as 'AFVs'? Does a tank get (numbers used for the sake of argument) -1 when attacking entrenched postions but +1 when attacking in the open, and does an SPG get a +1 when attacking entrenched positions but -1 when attacking in the open?

[ComradeP]

I don't know if in-game, say, self-propelled AT guns are less likely to move in closer than tanks, but there are differences in the way they participate in a battle due to their particular armament, armour, speed and size ratings. Self-propelled AT guns generally have a size rating of 3 or 4, a good gun and (for their chassis) good frontal armour for the non-open topped ones. The big gun (I)SU's have a size rating of 5. The average mid-late war medium tank has a size rating of 4 or 5, a decent gun and reasonable to good frontal armour.

I'd have to check the combat report dump details to see if tanks also tend to close in more often than self-propelled guns, but as stated above there's already a difference in how they perform just based on the performance of the various AFV types.

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

The core of the issue is whether tanks actually contributed more than just exploitation? Did they aid the advance of the infantry in a decisive way? Could the infantry just as well do their thing without tanks?

&

Here it _seems_ we disagree. If I understand your position correctly, you argue that the effect of tanks in an infantry supportive role is negligable.
Secondly, tanks (as in panzer divisions, as in the whole division not just the tanks of the panzer division) in panzer divs and TC, cannot by themselves establish breakthroughs and cause a lot of casualties.

My argument comes down to that a tank in an infantry support role isn't really making use of the tanks primary asset: mobility. If you use a tank as an armoured 57mm/75mm/76mm/85mm gun (to use the most common mid/late war calibres), you're wasting the mobility. You get a slow advance. Sure, the infantry probably appreciates it, but you might as well be using an assault gun for the same job, also because within no time some tanks will be brewing up because their frontal armour normally can't withstand prolonged fights.

In that case, to continue the link in the discussion to fighting in the west, you end up fighting like the Western Allies: you move the tanks in with the infantry, either the infantry or the tanks start taking losses and refuse to go further, reinforcements are called in. The result is a situation where a potentially very small enemy force, a few squads well equipped with MG's and Panzerfausts and an (self-propelled)AT gun, for example, can slow the advance down significantly, because the tanks are forced to stick to the infantry.

What the Germans understood well was that tanks were not made for that kind of thing. If the tanks encounter stiff dug-in resistance, you let them go somewhere else and let the infantry fight the enemy. You don't start banging your head against entrenched positions, a situation where tanks are just big targets.

In game terms, this means that when mobile units attack well entrenched units, they can suffer, but generally speaking when they attack some, say, Rifle division that has already been displaced by the infantry, the Soviets are going to take a beating, although losses can still be somewhat unimpressive (no argument there, I've made a couple of suggestions on the tester forum for improving casualties caused by mobile units).

If tanks attack well entrenched positions, they're probably at their most vulnerable.

Think of it like this: you have infantry and tanks at your disposal, in separate units, and you encounter an enemy position, knowing that both forces could dislodge the enemy. You could attack the position with your infantry, removing the enemy from their positions and then send your still fresh tanks after them, or you could send your tanks in to fight the enemy and then...order your infantry to walk after the enemy? The latter option isn't going to do you much good. The enemy will have plenty of time to reorganize as the infantry you send after them is easily slowed down by a couple of delaying actions.

I appreciate your efforts ComradeP, its good to hear that suggestions are made to improve the potential of tanks.

However, huhmmmm, you didn't really answer the questions
Obviously we all agree that using panzer divs to exploit a pre-made breach is surely preferable to having to make the breach with the panzers/TC.
I certainly won't dispute that tanks/SPG are most vulnerable when attacking highly entrenched positions, but then again, so is infantry, and they don't have 100cm of hardened steel to hide behind.

Tanks and SPG's are more or less the same when supporting infantry. Certainly, SPG's were probably slightly better suited but the principle remains the same, direct fire support to help the infantry overcome enemy strong points.

Regarding tanks going around strongpoints, couldn't agree more but surely this is something that considering the scale of the game must be abstracted and taken into account by the engine, not the player, as it is very tactical in nature. It is also something in which the germans excelled and the Soviets didn't get right till far in 1943, perhaps even until operation Bagration in 1944. Certainly not in 1941.

But the whole discussion resolved around the effectiveness of panzer divs/TC in the attacking role which seems underrated while at the same time Soviet rifle corps are the real killers even without tank/SPG support.

I'm also confused with the Normandy example. IF I understand correctly, your point there is that you're better of sending in the infantry without the tanks because when the infantry bogs down, your tanks stop too. Right? Doesn't that actually contradict the statement that infantry doesn't need tanks/SPG to help them overcome strong defenses?

Seriously, the question remains:
1. Do Soviet rifle corps need tanks to overcome highly fortified enemy positions or can they do equally well with lavish arty support? The current consensus is that in the game, tanks are reduntant and my understanding is that you support that design decision.
2. Are panzer divs or TC/MC capable of effecting the breach themselves if the situation calls for it? Currently, the consensus seems to be that in the game the panzer divs are too weak and cannot overcome strong defenses better or even on par with _good_ strong infantry divs. Hence, the statement that armour is underwhelming.

Question 2 is especially important when looking at the issue from the German perspective after 1941 when your infantry is simply not strong enough to make the breach for you and the German player must look at his panzer divs to that for him. As such, the position I'm defending is that yes, Panzer divs. could make the breach even better because of the prime asset it had: tanks (and obviously in a combined arms situation). Was it better not to employ them as such is beyond question. Were they employed in this role, even by the Germans, is also without question. Just look at Kursk, it were primarily the Panzer Divs, and panzer grend. divs. with the tanks in the vanguard, leading the attack, together with the infantry of those divs, that did most of the fighting simply because there was no way that ordinary infantry divisions would stand a chance to crack those entrenchements without tank/SPG support.

Nobody will dispute that infantry made up the vast majority of the armies but, honestly, whenever there was an offensive, tanks were crutial to the success or failure of said offensive IF terrain permitted the use of tanks. As someone else has remarked, mobility is not only movement after breakthrough, but also using that mobility on a tactical scale which is not under our control.

So, to come back to the original post, is the current game as is, leaning toward favoring the Soviet player? I'm still inclined to think it is. If the German panzer divs would be "upgraded" to be able to perform closer to histrical that would go a long way to even the score...IMHO.

[ComradeP]

I certainly won't dispute that tanks/SPG are most vulnerable when attacking highly entrenched positions, but then again, so is infantry, and they don't have 100cm of hardened steel to hide behind.

Infantrymen are vulnerable in the sense that they have no real protection against artillery fire or bullets, but they can still hit the deck or use the terrain, confusion and smoke to get closer to the enemy. That's another problem with AFV's in that role: when the infantry closes in and the battle becomes more disorganized, or as soon as smoke covers the battlefield, their effectiveness drops dramatically.

They can't reliably engage a target they can't see unless they have a really big gun and a good idea of where the target is, and they can't risk firing at positions that are being contested by friendly infantry. AFV's are great for the period leading up to the infantry getting to the enemy positions, but depending on the defender's positions, the AFV's either need to get really close to be effective after that or need to prepare for the enemy counterattack, letting the infantry do their thing. That's the moment in the battle where the tank crews need to at least move somewhere if they don't want to be sitting ducks.

Self-propelled guns are actually at a disadvantage at that stage compared to tanks, because they have no turret that can turn to engage new targets that might pop up. Not having a turret isn't much of a problem during a ranged battle with either a slow moving enemy or a static one, but in close combat or in a quickly changing situation, it's a disadvantage, especially for the (heavier) self-propelled guns with slow turn speeds.

I'd say the game models this well: infantry is vulnerable, but not too vulnerable and the defender's infantry is more likely to disrupt or damage rather than instantly kill the attacking squads until the range closes to 50 meters or less. Depending on how disrupted the attacking and defending infantry is, the attacker can then either cause some damage to the defenders or retreat with moderate losses after not making much of an impression on the defender (as in: those 100 German to 6000 Soviet losses Soviet failed attacks you sometimes see).

I'm also confused with the Normandy example. IF I understand correctly, your point there is that you're better of sending in the infantry without the tanks because when the infantry bogs down, your tanks stop too. Right? Doesn't that actually contradict the statement that infantry doesn't need tanks/SPG to help them overcome strong defenses?

I'm saying that was what happened historically, a practice both the Germans and (eventually) the Soviets managed to avoid by both having a higher tolerance for losses and a more serious focus on mobility. Western Allied battleplans were not really imaginative compared to how the war in the east was fought. The only truly big encirclement they achieved, in the Ruhr in the final weeks of the war, was made possible because the Germans didn't withdraw and had very little mobility left. The Western Allies somehow often managed to run into the weakness of both infantry (slow) and tanks (vulnerable when leading an attack against well defended positions) whilst not really using their advantages.

1. Do Soviet rifle corps need tanks to overcome highly fortified enemy positions or can they do equally well with lavish arty support? The current consensus is that in the game, tanks are reduntant and my understanding is that you support that design decision.

Tanks are not redundant, they're just not miracle weapons. They have their own purpose. Engaging heavily defended positions is not really what they're there for. Sure, they can help out, but depending on the quality of the defender they might just give the defending AT guns/AFV's something to shoot at. Rifle units, backed with artillery, can and do make successful attacks. The follow-up attack is then made by the mobile units.

2. Are panzer divs or TC/MC capable of effecting the breach themselves if the situation calls for it? Currently, the consensus seems to be that in the game the panzer divs are too weak and cannot overcome strong defenses better or even on par with _good_ strong infantry divs. Hence, the statement that armour is underwhelming.

As mobile units generally have a higher CV than infantry units of the same size, they're better at removing the defender from their position.

The main problem the Germans face with their mobile units, from my perspective, is that they can't really make economical counterattacks. That's a problem we're trying to solve now. On the other hand, Soviet backhand blows can be quite effective. A "deep defense" style defense can cause the Axis some serious pain even in 1941, but especially in later years. We've had some discussions about it on the tester forum, but for the moment they're still discussions, it's difficult to decide what changes can be made to limit their effectiveness, aside from reducing Soviet national morale in 1941, which overall won't really limit their ability to simply rail in a Guards army or two whenever the Axis break through.

It's mostly those kind of defensive strategies that make mobile units look bad in the game currently, whilst they can still be quite good when attacking. As soon as losses for high experience units are lowered, and the mobile units are more likely to stay at fairly high morale levels, things should be better combined with the changes to forts.

[Mynok]

The lesson of WW1 is that arty & infantry cannot prevail against deep trenches and machine guns. So trying to make the point that Soviet infantry corps don't need tanks in support or that tanks didn't decisively contribute in offensive operations as a weapon is, in my opinion not correct.

Except that the Germans did do it in 1918 without tank support, using stosstruppen and infiltration tactics and modified artillery tactics.

It can be done and was.

[delatbabel]

So what I'm reading here is that the following actions should be taken to improve the game:

1. Artillery should have no effect.
2. Except German artillery. Any Soviet unit attacked by German artillery should be eliminated.
3. Soviets should be limited to stacking 3 brigades in a hex, or 2 divisions, or 1 corps. This is because a Soviet brigade is equivalent to a German division in terms of stacking ability.
4. Any Soviet unit attacked by a Panzer regiment should be immediately eliminated.
5. Any Soviet unit attacked by a German unit should be immediately eliminated.
6. Any lower morale unit attacked by a higher morale unit should be immediately eliminated.
7. Closely related, German attacks that fail should not be counted as a defeat.
8. Any German unit that is attacked should hold its ground at all costs.
9. German units recovering from the disabled pool should have 100% morale and 100% experience due to them being veterans.
10. The 1941 scenario should be modified to move all Soviet units to the border line. No Soviet unit should be allowed to move from its starting position.
11. Soviet industry shouldn't be able to be railed out, and shouldn't be able to produce anything.
12. The game ends with a German victory on the first occasion that the Germans capture a Soviet held city.
13. The game ends with a German victory on the first occasion that any Soviet factory is damaged or captured.
14. In any case, the game ends with a German victory on the first turn of July 1941.

That'd make a better game for some, I'm sure. The rest of us have already stopped taking the princess pills.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

So what I'm reading here is that the following actions should be taken to improve the game:

1. Artillery should have no effect.
2. Except German artillery. Any Soviet unit attacked by German artillery should be eliminated.
3. Soviets should be limited to stacking 3 brigades in a hex, or 2 divisions, or 1 corps. This is because a Soviet brigade is equivalent to a German division in terms of stacking ability.
4. Any Soviet unit attacked by a Panzer regiment should be immediately eliminated.
5. Any Soviet unit attacked by a German unit should be immediately eliminated.
6. Any lower morale unit attacked by a higher morale unit should be immediately eliminated.
7. Closely related, German attacks that fail should not be counted as a defeat.
8. Any German unit that is attacked should hold its ground at all costs.
9. German units recovering from the disabled pool should have 100% morale and 100% experience due to them being veterans.
10. The 1941 scenario should be modified to move all Soviet units to the border line. No Soviet unit should be allowed to move from its starting position.
11. Soviet industry shouldn't be able to be railed out, and shouldn't be able to produce anything.
12. The game ends with a German victory on the first occasion that the Germans capture a Soviet held city.
13. The game ends with a German victory on the first occasion that any Soviet factory is damaged or captured.
14. In any case, the game ends with a German victory on the first turn of July 1941.

That'd make a better game for some, I'm sure. The rest of us have already stopped taking the princess pills.

LOL! That was funny! However, I do think there is some merit to many of the points raised by the OP. Then if that should be called "Bias" is debatable. I do think the game definitely needs some tweaking to get things right from 1942 and onwards. There are lots of indications in AARs and in my own games that the Soviets are too strong, or the Germans too weak.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
LOL! That was funny!

Funny, indeed, but IMO a bit of a flame bait

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
However, I do think there is some merit to many of the points raised by the OP. Then if that should be called "Bias" is debatable. I do think the game definitely needs some tweaking to get things right from 1942 and onwards. There are lots of indications in AARs and in my own games that the Soviets are too strong, or the Germans too weak.

I'd rather say that there are a few game mechanics which need to be adjusted or introduced. That such shortcomings - or perhaps bugs - benefit the Soviets is basically coincidental. The Axis is fighting - as historical - on a shoestring, and little issues, in combat, in TOE upgrade mechanics, in replacement mechanics, in supply etc. snowball and allow to gimp the Axis war machine too soon, too easily perhaps.

The same problems people report in GC 41 games should perhaps also occur on the GC 44, probably with the sides reversed.

Anybody up to find out? I don't think there are many 44-45 games going on. If anybody is interested, don't worry, I will be playing Axis [:D]

[heliodorus04]

A game where the Soviets can build any type of unit and support unit that they desire, while the Axis may not do likewise, is most assuredly biased in favor of the Soviets.  All that is necessary is to figure out which units are superior in quality to others (for example mortars and rifle corps) and build more of those to leverage the mathematical advantage.

This issue alone means the Soviet will always retain an advantage over the German side, all else held equal.

But, alas, not all else is held equal.  The Soviets also have +1 odds shift, the ability to create new HQ units, the stacking advantage of multiple corps stacking, and complete control over factory movements (Imagine if factories relocated according to the calendar they were moved historically, the same way German divisions are withdrawn!).

Of course it's biased in favor of the Soviets. To argue otherwise is to ignore reality.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
(Imagine if factories relocated according to the calendar they were moved historically, the same way German divisions are withdrawn!).

Not a very good analogy; factory evacuations should obviously be based on what is occuring within the Russian theater (ie, under player control), while German unit withdrawals are determined by events happening in different theaters (ie, outside of player control). Don't you think that is a significant difference?

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
A game where the Soviets can build any type of unit and support unit that they desire, while the Axis may not do likewise, is most assuredly biased in favor of the Soviets.  All that is necessary is to figure out which units are superior in quality to others (for example mortars and rifle corps) and build more of those to leverage the mathematical advantage.

This issue alone means the Soviet will always retain an advantage over the German side, all else held equal.

But, alas, not all else is held equal.  The Soviets also have +1 odds shift, the ability to create new HQ units, the stacking advantage of multiple corps stacking, and complete control over factory movements (Imagine if factories relocated according to the calendar they were moved historically, the same way German divisions are withdrawn!).

"Biased" as in "favoring one side clearly"? Or "biased" as in "asymmetric strategic options"?

Actually I think the limiting of Axis players strategic options was somewhat overdone: the ability to decide on building HQ's and on LW Feld Divisions and VolksGrenadier Divisions should be at the hands of the player. It escapes me completely why would an Axis player want to form up more PanzerDivisions or Infanterie Divisions when his resources are so scarce (compared with Soviet Union's), especially when the Axis gets destroyed units back without incurring on AP expenses (at least surrendered units, I have yet to see a German Heer unit to SHATTER).

A higher degree of freedom also entails more opportunities to make mistakes. "Optimal" unit building requires armaments, tanks, generic vehicles and AP's. Perhaps the intrinsic trade-offs should be a bit harder to balance or easier to gimp the Red Army by introducing an unreasonable program of reforms. This would make the Soviet strategic play more challenging.

Perhaps those trade-offs are easy to get right because of the problems that have been identified at the operational level (fortifications, national morale, etc.), so the Soviet player is not any more under anything like the pressure he's subjected during 1941 summer and autumn.

There are a couple huge difference between German scheduled withdrawals and factory evacuations. The first depend on events being abstracted a way the war against the Western Allies, which regardless what happens on the Eastern Front, progresses according to history. The second depend on the actions of the on the map.

It wouldn't make sense to move the T-34 factories out of Kharkov until the prescribed date: what if the Axis get Kharkov way before that date?

[janh]

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Not a very good analogy; factory evacuations should obviously be based on what is occuring within the Russian theater (ie, under player control), while German unit withdrawals are determined by events happening in different theaters (ie, outside of player control). Don't you think that is a significant difference?

Not a good analogy, true. The concept for factory evac is surely sound. However, heliodorus04 definitely has a point there with unit building and equipment.

For sure the Russian players can make mistakes with that (same as it is easy in WiTP/AE to mess up the whole war as Japanese by screwing around with economy), but experienced players will not make such mistakes but use this feature to their best advantage. Compare for example the present implementation to a way analogous to the treatment of Axis units, which could have been chosen similarly:
For any Russian unit lost, a new unit will automatically be formed at no AP cost; If less Russian units are lost in summer 41, the player will have the benefit of having more left; Any new units build historically by the Russians will also come as reinforcements of the corresponding type at their exact dates (much like the Axis withdrawal system) at no AP cost.

I might be wrong, but this would look to me like being more similar to the Axis rules. The Russian player would have to stick to the unit types historically build, and could not, for example concentrate on Tank and Mech Corps if in his AAR the main fighting occurs in more open south, or concentrate on Inf, Sappers and Art if he chooses his center of gravity to be up in the wooded north.

I don't know how you think about this, but surely this added flexibility adds to the fun of playing the Russian side: being able to adapt to situations, and do better by concentrating on the unit types that perform best for their own strategy. Conversely, I think a lot more German players would fight out the later years, if some similar flexibility would be given to them. Ideally control over production, ToE switches and upgrades and unit formation. But that would mean too much effort. Surely, lack of resources prevent building new Panzer troops, but some little way to change/upgrade ToE, and decide which units to rebuild, or others to build instead, would add a lot to Axis and give more hope to achieve something surprising and exciting in the later phase. It won't change the outcome, but it would also give the Russian opponent a little more of a challenge rather than just grinding it out...

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
(Imagine if factories relocated according to the calendar they were moved historically, the same way German divisions are withdrawn!).

Not a very good analogy; factory evacuations should obviously be based on what is occuring within the Russian theater (ie, under player control), while German unit withdrawals are determined by events happening in different theaters (ie, outside of player control). Don't you think that is a significant difference?

With certain withdrawals, you're correct that these are going to Africa, or Italy or whatnot.

But many 1942 withdrawals, such as those of SS units, occurred because the 1941 winter required units to be replenished which was historically chosen to occur in France. If Das Reich doesn't take Demyansk Pocket style casualties, Das Reich STILL withdraws. (If my memory is wrong and it's not Das Reich, please substitute the appropriate unit).

What you have in this game is one side that has an invested capability to be strategic in gameplay terms (the Soviet can build ALL TYPES of units, move production centers, let certain production centers die at the expense of others) and one side absolutely does not.

With any game, players will find the incentives built into the system that are disproportionately effective and leverage them to maximum advantage. Mortars are the classic example right now. Once mortars are balanced, the Soviet players will move on to the next best leveraged unit or SU as determined by trail and error. Maybe it's tank brigades. Maybe it's cavalry corps. Whatever it is, the Soviet can stack their OOB with those types of units and leverage the advantage. There's no need to produce anything but what is maximally favored by the combat engine.

The German player is stuck with the toys that history gave him, and nothing more. Where the Soviet can see his Pools totals and build spare units around surpluses, the German can't even get Pool tanks into the front line units that need tanks...

I'm not saying this to 76mm, but to anyone: if you can't see how this system creates a bias in favor of the Soviets, I don't know how to help you understand it.

[KenchiSulla]

So the answer is simple.. Either limit the soviets in what they can or can't do or give the Axis more freedom...