atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: janh
I wonder how a game would work out, in which both side would be set up with historical positions and ToE for December 41, and slug is out following the same attack and holding pattern the contemporary counterparts followed -- I imagine it would be bad.

Something I asked for...in December 2010...., since this is the only way to see if the special rules actually made sense.

[RCHarmon]

I'd like to post here and again state how much I hate this games' 1941 blizzard. For reasons already covered in the thread and I think all the posters are in general agreement on the 1941 blizzard.

[morvael]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
The designers did not want to force players to make the same mistakes made by both sides.

The VP system is a "soft" force. You don't have to do things you don't want, for a price. On the other hand you have now a "hard" force. No matter what you do, the Soviets are crap first, and the Germans are crap next.

[terje439]

Posted originally in my AAR;

"The Blizzard is debated over and over, and there are indeed imo some issues that makes it somewhat OP for a good USSR player (espesially when playing someone like me).
-the Germans inability to counterattack
-the extremely low German defensive CV
-the high mobility of the USSR units
-the low mobility of German units
This leads to a situation where an entire army can be jeopardized by two unlucky dice throws, and German losses are appaling if this happens.

What I was thinking was the following;
-give rivers defensive values even at winter (been saying this for a long time, I know) ***
-give German units a % chance each turn during the Blizzard to be "winterized" (to simulate the effort to make emergency deliveries of winter clothing, skis etc that actually took place), where their defensive CV is increased (not their offensive CV). *****

And I get that people think that the blizzard penalties are justified due to the German opening moves. Well, I have no issue with reducing the MPs on the German panzers on T1 (should remove the Lvov-pocket, rush to Riga etc) if this is what is needed to look at the Blizzard.

Anyway, just my tired brain thinking after making yet another blizzard turn as the Germans.
I also agree to the fact that better players will do better during Blizzard than me, and that there are issues arising that I have myself to thank for."

*** Ice and snow, flat surface, up to several miles across. Yup, not at all a good defensive position...
***** This would make things a little unpredictable as you would not know what unit(s) if any would become winterized each turn, and could indeed cause some probles for the USSR as the unit he wants to remove can suddenly have normal defensive CV, or it could unhinge an uncautious German player that gambles on a specific unit to become winterized and hold an important hex.


Terje

[janh]

ORIGINAL: MechFO
The Russians had trouble making headway against depleted German units at 30-40% Inf TOE. What killed German units (besides supply situation) was having to retreat to prevent being outflanked. This was both due to their severe overextension as well as the sudden loss of tactical mobility. The constant exposure to winter in the open from having to keep moving killed both the transport (horses and broken down trucks) leading to the vast majority of equipment losses as well as leading to many attrition losses.

Even so, spent German units still managed to conduct Army scale successful manoeuvre warfare in January/February 41.

German units should lose ZOC and have severe supply and movement penalties as well as suffering heavy attrition if having to displace, but the current blizzard penalties (especially cv) are a joke. If anything they are ass-backward rewarding running while running was pretty much what killed the combat value of units in real life....

The summer 41 campaign also has more than it's share of structural issues but that's for another thread.

+1

The present blizzard rules are basically not causal -- totally out of context. If the Germans don't make the same major mistakes like they did before blizzard, but played conservative, with hindsight, saving strengths and avoiding overextension or uneconomic attacks, the blizzard offensive still can happen and be (somewhat) "devastating".

Imagine you'd play the game trying to mimick historical doctrine against a human player, play shortsighted for a 41 end? And you'd end up with half-wasted units stuck in the mud just outside of the gates of Moscow and Leningrad, in deadlock with increasing Russian resistance when blizzard strikes. Unless your SHC opponent committed also to throw hindsight out of the window and waste his force in summer and autumn in plenty pockets and countless, pointless counterattacks (as if a division of BT-7 made the Germans falter...), you can probably tell yourself how with the present blizzard rules it would end otherwise.

If both played "fools" though, and played to get the most historical feel out of it, it still would hurt the Germans -- they have too little offensive power to "clean" situations up.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: AFV
I would like the first turn fixed. The Llov pocket is just too harsh. However, it has become a way to balance out all the other imbalances in the game, which is unfortunate.

+2

The only thing that presently limits the impact of Lvov a bit is the equally gamey bottling of the Finnish up in the northern map corner. Both ought to be a matter of house rules, in this form they are purely due to game limits or mechanics.

Ideally make Lvov a possibility within the realm of a historical position setup, and present MPs and flexibility, but not a given every single time attempted. It should at least sometimes require a 2nd turn to succeed. Ideally do so by adding a kind of reaction/interdiction move or such that we don't have this more or less unbroken (air interdiction) I-Go-U-Go system with what gives the impression of a 1-week BBQ of your units while the opponents walk around you unmolested. Less ideally by randomizing the historical positions at each start, or the German starting MPs.

Right now we have Lvov and extended Lvov, which move the course immediately a world away from history (or gain 4 weeks time in a half) -- and people wonder why the Russians react to that and run for the hills in the south... Then you have blizzard rules that are too harsh under normal conditions, and you wonder why the Germans in a typical game give ground...

Preventing both from running, which in both cases in the absence of political factors seems to be advisable from purely military considerations, could perhaps be enforced better by a turn by turn VP system. In principle this would force players to repeat those mistakes though, else we will have to be happy with the fact that each side will optimize its strategy and chose when to fight or to run for its own sake. That surely doesn't give the feel of a brawl and struggle to death, but more like the Africa campaign. A matter of preference, perhaps?

[Peltonx]

I beleive the one major thing that would give the game a historical feel is a turn by turn VP system or make railing out industry harder.

Both would forse fighting forward.

This in turn would require that SHC gets more forses early or nerf Lvov pocket some how.

Lvov pocket solution: The first turn would be SHC, some units in south would be given ( x ) MP's, a small amount 6? Enough so they cant just run, but enough so making a huge pocket would be impossible or unlikely.

OR

Give them full movement, but only in a small boxed in area.

I beleive both can easly be coded in and it is a simple fix

With a Lvov pocket fix if a VP system is not possible then simply totally nerf the blizzard effects of 41/42.

A more historical "fix" would be that the effects only last 2 turns, which is more in line with historical.

or

The increase in cv to SHC is 25% and lower GHC by 25% and completely nerf the silly magic boots for increased SHC MP's

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: janh

ORIGINAL: MechFO
The Russians had trouble making headway against depleted German units at 30-40% Inf TOE. What killed German units (besides supply situation) was having to retreat to prevent being outflanked. This was both due to their severe overextension as well as the sudden loss of tactical mobility. The constant exposure to winter in the open from having to keep moving killed both the transport (horses and broken down trucks) leading to the vast majority of equipment losses as well as leading to many attrition losses.

Even so, spent German units still managed to conduct Army scale successful manoeuvre warfare in January/February 41.

German units should lose ZOC and have severe supply and movement penalties as well as suffering heavy attrition if having to displace, but the current blizzard penalties (especially cv) are a joke. If anything they are ass-backward rewarding running while running was pretty much what killed the combat value of units in real life....

The summer 41 campaign also has more than it's share of structural issues but that's for another thread.

+1

The present blizzard rules are basically not causal -- totally out of context. If the Germans don't make the same major mistakes like they did before blizzard, but played conservative, with hindsight, saving strengths and avoiding overextension or uneconomic attacks, the blizzard offensive still can happen and be (somewhat) "devastating".

Imagine you'd play the game trying to mimick historical doctrine against a human player, play shortsighted for a 41 end? And you'd end up with half-wasted units stuck in the mud just outside of the gates of Moscow and Leningrad, in deadlock with increasing Russian resistance when blizzard strikes. Unless your SHC opponent committed also to throw hindsight out of the window and waste his force in summer and autumn in plenty pockets and countless, pointless counterattacks (as if a division of BT-7 made the Germans falter...), you can probably tell yourself how with the present blizzard rules it would end otherwise.

If both played "fools" though, and played to get the most historical feel out of it, it still would hurt the Germans -- they have too little offensive power to "clean" situations up.

The only way the Germans could have avoided their total supply breakdown in 1941 would have been to not invade the Soviet Union. They were not even close to being prepared logistically for the winter. The war was supposed to be over by then, according to their plan. There was no expedient or makeshift that could have avoided the catastrophic supply failure they experienced.

The blizzard rule in this game has a lot of problems. But causality isn't one of them.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: janh

ORIGINAL: AFV
I would like the first turn fixed. The Llov pocket is just too harsh. However, it has become a way to balance out all the other imbalances in the game, which is unfortunate.

+2

The only thing that presently limits the impact of Lvov a bit is the equally gamey bottling of the Finnish up in the northern map corner. Both ought to be a matter of house rules, in this form they are purely due to game limits or mechanics.

Ideally make Lvov a possibility within the realm of a historical position setup, and present MPs and flexibility, but not a given every single time attempted. It should at least sometimes require a 2nd turn to succeed. Ideally do so by adding a kind of reaction/interdiction move or such that we don't have this more or less unbroken (air interdiction) I-Go-U-Go system with what gives the impression of a 1-week BBQ of your units while the opponents walk around you unmolested. Less ideally by randomizing the historical positions at each start, or the German starting MPs.

Right now we have Lvov and extended Lvov, which move the course immediately a world away from history (or gain 4 weeks time in a half) -- and people wonder why the Russians react to that and run for the hills in the south... Then you have blizzard rules that are too harsh under normal conditions, and you wonder why the Germans in a typical game give ground...

Preventing both from running, which in both cases in the absence of political factors seems to be advisable from purely military considerations, could perhaps be enforced better by a turn by turn VP system. In principle this would force players to repeat those mistakes though, else we will have to be happy with the fact that each side will optimize its strategy and chose when to fight or to run for its own sake. That surely doesn't give the feel of a brawl and struggle to death, but more like the Africa campaign. A matter of preference, perhaps?

No, the Finnish bottleneck doesn't even come close to balancing Lvov. All it does is prevent the fall of Leningrad (a nearly automatic event and that itself is a problem) from spiraling out of control. What happens in Leningrad is quite unrelated to Lvov and a whole different problem. It's just too easy to take barring a massive commitment of forces.

The proper way to fix the whole Finnish front is to remove it altogether. It is more trouble than it's worth. Just get rid of it and remove 23. and 7. Armies along with it to represent Soviet forces committed to offmap operations.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
The only way the Germans could have avoided their total supply breakdown in 1941 would have been to not invade the Soviet Union. They were not even close to being prepared logistically for the winter. The war was supposed to be over by then, according to their plan. There was no expedient or makeshift that could have avoided the catastrophic supply failure they experienced.

The blizzard rule in this game has a lot of problems. But causality isn't one of them.

While you are certainly right that bottling the Finns isn't an effect at the same order of Lvov, or does anything about saving LG, I disagree about blizzard. If the combat penalties were somewhat light, but supply even tighter than now, I would see this as a good representation of this German logistics breakdown it is supposed to model. But presently, if you cling tight to a Soviet Army with about the historical strengths on both sides and in many areas don't take a step unless forced by combat, I think with the present rules it totally spins out of control. Maybe ask Scar what happened, but their recent game appeared to be somewhat representative of that situation.

Even if one conserves forces well, enters blizzard with high moral infantry at >>80% ToE, one gets a whipping during December and January unless SHC has been cut to well below 5M, perhaps even down to 4M. This is independent of the type of opponent, though a human player will make pockets and hurt GHC worse than AI, which even at 100% or 110% still can push you back basically everywhere it wants, but doesn't cause you too much headaches as it rarely pockets. GHC, in such a conserved state, and at least against a reasonably weakened SHC, should have a better ability to conduct relieve attempts or attacks during blizzard, or at least shouldn't suffer so heavy moral losses when attacking and failing/or get greater gains when winning as well. Else, this makes the fighting during that time mood -- even if you win 1 out of 3 times, the moral is going to pummel and you get punished for attempting to hold, but with no gain in VP or anything else (except when SHC makes mistakes, i.e overextends and attacks with overly heavy losses -- then you get a payback, perhaps even a good one if you can start with a spring 42 offensive).

The effects are just a bit too strong. Maybe adjust them to the January level for December, and to the February level for January as well. That would "feel" more in accordance with the reference case.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: Pelton
I beleive the one major thing that would give the game a historical feel is a turn by turn VP system or make railing out industry harder.

I'd wish for a modified VP system in WitE2, if so be. The industry capacities and railing seems to be well-researched by the devs, and appears to recreate things within limits credibly. If you'd now artificially modify that toward unrealistic levels just to rebalance a GC, you might not only create your own version of LoTR as you call it, but open a box of pandora. Changing VPs is a "soft", a rather arbitrary thing, just as politics and population war morale would be, and might be easier to justify without causing side effects?

[mevstedt]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Perhaps you should run through the forums to read all the complaints and accusations from some Axis players first.

What makes you think I haven't? ... I've been stalking this forum for quite some time tbh. My point was though, as have also been pointed out previously, that two wrongs don't make one right. Especially not so when the two issues (wrongs) are unrelated, ie there is no point in using the Lvov opening as an excuse to keep the Blizzard the way it is as they are unrelated.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
The only way the Germans could have avoided their total supply breakdown in 1941 would have been to not invade the Soviet Union. They were not even close to being prepared logistically for the winter. The war was supposed to be over by then, according to their plan. There was no expedient or makeshift that could have avoided the catastrophic supply failure they experienced.

The blizzard rule in this game has a lot of problems. But causality isn't one of them.

This is fairly accurate, there are alot of underlying causes but in essence the germans did not have a contingency plan in the case that the Soviet Union managed to hold out until the winter. Lack of winter clothing, low manpower reserves, lack of spare parts for tanks and vehicles overall, overstreched supply lines and so on, there are numerous issues they were facing that all together left the german army in a very weak state by the end of operation typhoon.

(I have no figures but a guess would be that the germans were on overall somewhere around 50% TOE average, a german army in equal state in the game facing a soviet army in the blizzard with the rules as they are would stare down at Operation Bagration on steroids. That is also the point I am arguing, the germans were in bad shape at the start of the soviet counteroffensives but they were not in much worse state when the frontlines consolidated in late february/early march 42).

Peltons suggestion may give a somewhat more accurate depiction, although the exact numbers would have to be tested as well as how long the effect should last, my gut feeling is that 2 turns [might] be too little and maybe 3 or perhaps 4 turns might be needed but that is what playtesting is for. If we compare to history, what he suggests is essentially to give the soviets the capacity to knock the germans out of fortified positions (this may require more than 1 turn which is why I'm not sure 2 turns are enough) and then the game becomes alot more open as the germans, unlike the soviets, can not commit large number of units to dig defenses in depth.

The Blizzard rule in its current form simply dictates the entire 41 campaign for the axis side. It's all about getting far enough to be able to give ground, transport troops to germany so they don't suffer penalties and even the strategical value of Leningrad is highly increased since a large part of the axis ability to be able to cope with the blizzard to even a slight degree depends on the ability to free up the Finns. If the blizzard rule is rewritten then the focus shifts from trying to survive the blizzard and to a more open (and hopefully more enjoyable) game, for both sides. The reason I believe this is because Leningrad will not automatically be the number one priority of any decent axis player, which means it opens up choices again for both sides. Do the germans go for Leningrad, Moscow or both Leningrad and Moscow? As it is now, an axis player who has atleast a bit of experience, will almost always aim for Leningrad first and after that, go for Moscow once Leningrad is taken. Never the other way around, atleast from what I can tell.

I'll just end up with some historical speculation just to flesh things out. The germans reached Leningrad in august 41, there is nothing that actually says they could not have assaulted the city (whether it would have fallen or not is another matter). However, it is likely that if an assault on such a major city had been undertaken it would probably not have started until late august or early september and had probably taken most of september (and more) to reach a conclusion. From a game pov this would essentially have made it too late to regroup AGN to participate in offensive operations against Moscow, which seems fine to me, as it would force the axis player into a similar situation as the german high command, ie: do we commit (in force) to taking Leningrad or should we aim for Moscow.

[Ketza]

Fix the Lvow pocket and the majority of Soviet players will run anyway and save all those prime divisions for other fronts while stalling the Axis in the south. They can also save all those nasty mountain units for the blizzard.

When I run into an Axis player that does not do a Lvow pocket it is a guarantee that both Moscow and Leningrad hold as I shuttle all those juicy units to the landbridge and Leningrad lines.

Now this may be because only an unseasoned Axis player will not accomplish a Lvow pocket [:D]

[Peltonx]

Moscow is simply not possible now because of the logistics nerf .13 vs just about anyone. There have been several dozen games post .13 and in none has it fallen in 41 that I know of.

Leningrad is really not takable if the SHC simply rails up 20+ units from the south as they are not needed at this time.

Basicly for GHC 1941 is setting up for 1942.

The game all things being equal hvy favors SHC not because of .13, but because the blizzard in the past was used to balance out the poor logistic system which has now been fixed.

So the Blizzard is totally unbalancing the game to the point GHC is forsed to retreat to Poland because of the massive SHC armys come blizzard +5 million in many cases. Massive historical morale losses are just not historical or the 10+ divisions being lost in AAR after AAR.

[turtlefang]

While the blizzard rules may need to be changed, I don't think you can base it on how the Soviets performed historically. At that point, I think your
your comparing an apples and oranges situation here when you compare what the SHC can do in the game versus what happens historically.

Historically, the Soviets really lost a huge number of men in 1941. Based on the research I've seen, the average estimates run about:

USSR (millions, KIA, MIA, WIA - note that some of the WIA will return to action)
1941 - 7.423
1942 - 8.369
1943 - 7.957

If a German player inflicts these losses on the SHC, then the SHC is unlikely to kill 10 to 20 divisions in the Winter or launch major offensives across the entire front - although the SHC will inflict a lot of losses and be able to take a territory back.

On the other hand, if the GHC kills inflicts 3MM losses, the Germans going to face a relatively strong SHC and end up in trouble and he will face a SHC that 70% stronger than he was historically.

So changing the blizzard rules - by itself - is probably not the way to go. Your really talking some major changes:
- increasing the ability of the GHC to inflicit losses (could be enhanced cbt values in 41, morale, or whatever)
- increasing the SHC ability to replace losses, (a whole lost, especially after suffering losses)
- adding in a LOT of SHC units that simply don't currently make an appearance,
- fixing the first turn surprise rules,
- increasing German attritrion (losses for tanks and art don't get to historical norm by factors of five, and infantry losses are still too light to get to 41 losses),
- based on history, rail transportation for the Soviets is too low (the Soviets actually park a large number of engines and frieght stock so losses didn't decrease rail ability in the least - net for the war, Soviet engine losses were a -1000 engines and about 100,000 rolling stock - and they parked nearly 200,000 rolling stock out of the 600,000 they started with so they should have a fixed rr level thoughout the war, and yes, I understand the issue of marshalling yards, I have 30 years transportation, logistics experience)

That's a lot of changes and moving parts. And a lot of testing and balancing to get it right.

Anyway, my 2 cents

[Flaviusx]

There is no need whatsoever to retreat to Poland for the first blizzard, whatever problems the blizzard rule has. This is sheer hyperbole.

I'm in fact very critical about this "strategy" as imo it basically hands over the game to the Soviet, provided he isn't dumb about taking advantage of this freebie runaway. (I.e., don't chase him all the way back with your MLR, just use pickets to establish a buffer zone, and park the real strength of the Red Army on defensible terrain well to the east that buffer zone. Make the Axis waste spring and early summer reaching the MLR, rebuilding rail lines, etc.)

Such a retreat on the part of the Axis is voluntary, not anything forced by game mechanics or the opponent. It amounts to a declaration of strategic bankruptcy.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

There is no need whatsoever to retreat to Poland for the first blizzard, whatever problems the blizzard rule has. This is sheer hyperbole.

I'm in fact very critical about this "strategy" as imo it basically hands over the game to the Soviet, provided he isn't dumb about taking advantage of this freebie runaway. (I.e., don't chase him all the way back with your MLR, just use pickets to establish a buffer zone, and park the real strength of the Red Army on defensible terrain well to the east that buffer zone. Make the Axis waste spring and early summer reaching the MLR, rebuilding rail lines, etc.)

Such a retreat on the part of the Axis is voluntary, not anything forced by game mechanics or the opponent. It amounts to a declaration of strategic bankruptcy.

Facts are and its happening allot now, Germans are losing 10+ divisions and are unable to mount even a feable offensive in early 42.

The blizzard is totally unhistirical.

If your a SHC player and loses more then 2.7 million men your not doing much right. SHC 5+ million men armys are normal now. Pocketing 10 divisions is normal.

I am playing my first SHC and pocketing 10+ divisions is realyy really easy and the SHC player is running 20 to 30 miles per turn. Hheheheh kinda hopeless at this point.

If he was fighting forward I could easly pocket 30+ german divisions. I am a 100% total newbie and its a cake walk. I am losing 70% of the battles but still pocketing some units every turn.

The blizzard is so unhistorical is silly at this point.

If your dont run as GHC 300 miles to east your toast and you will still lose 17 points of morale and 10+ units.

Its not This is sheer hyperbole.

If you read the AAR's is a matter of fact of the game. I am doing it in my game and I am a total moron.

So as GHC you lose in 44 if you stand and fight or run.

It is what it is read the AAR's vs someone that knows the exploits.

tm.asp?m=3160793&mpage=3

smokendave is retreating at least 80 miles in 4 turns, I can hardly win a battle to save my life, and its still np to pocket units.

Of cource I have the replasement snowball exploit going now so this retreat will be 17 turns or 300+ miles or e will lose allot more then 10 divisions and again I cant even merge units an have a rainbow of chaos going for my unit heheheh

[Peltonx]

So whats better try and fight or start running for Poland.

If he sticks around GHC army will be 100% usless in 42 summer. Its just to easy, I can even do it and I am a newbie.

The SHC side is as easy as MT siad it would be.

[Flaviusx]

Pelton, a gradual withdrawal is all that is necessary. Running away to Poland is not. That's just giving the game away.

Also: if future games, don't do any more right hooks. Only works against somebody not expecting it. At this point everybody knows this is your MO and it can be shut down.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Pelton, a gradual withdrawal is all that is necessary. Running away to Poland is not. That's just giving the game away.

Also: if future games, don't do any more right hooks. Only works against somebody not expecting it. At this point everybody knows this is your MO and it can be shut down.

Not even talking about that game, thats another story all together.

A gradual withdrawal only means GHC will lose 10-20 divisions which is not historical by a long shot. Historically the only large formations of troops pocketed were russian and not german. This is the normal now in many AAR's.

If you stand and fight its a complete disaster.


tm.asp?m=3173669&mpage=5

tm.asp?m=3142279&mpage=4&key=