The blizzard Bug is Still with Us

[RickyB]

There is a bug in version 3.2 where divisions do not lose any readiness in combat, but smaller units do as they all should. This will be fixed in the next update. Regarding the penalties, these are in place to cause problems for the side suffering from them. Without penalties of some kind, you will not see any shatters unless a unit is extremely weak, or when surrounded, making the game much tougher to follow the flow of history, within the range of player capabilities.

[Supervisor]

I am not saying there should be NO penalties. I am saying that the penalties should NOT be as severe as encouraging "shatters" of otherwise good troops...especially due to somewhat hidden calculations. Yes, the penalties can lead or encourage shatters.

I was thinking a cap on operational korps readiness, or a factor applied to operational points used to give readiness recovery. ie. in Blizzard, each op point expended(in recovery or by special supply[including air supply?]) would be worth 75% of summer impact upon readiness.

The above would make it more transparent as to what and why things are happening.


quote :
Without penalties of some kind, you will not see any shatters unless a unit is extremely weak, or when surrounded, making the game much tougher to follow the flow of history, within the range of player capabilities. endquote.
comment:
Are you suggesting that a "shatter" is very unlikely even if normal combat results in odds of something like 15:1 . I have seen Kiev actually hold the hex at such odds.
I think i would prefer shatter to be a possiblity when odds are substantial. Perhaps in odds of 10:1 of committed units, there is a 10% chance of shatter. At 11:1, it becomes 20% . Perhaps this percentage(10%, 20%) needs to be divided by entrenchment value or perhaps multiplied by 10% of the entrenchment values shortfall from a max entrenchment value[considering major cities].
ie. 12:1 gives 30% chance of shatter, with level 3 entrenchment this results with 30/3 = 10.00% chance of shatter or 30*(9-3)*.1 = 18.00% chance of shatter. Entrenchment level 5 results in
30/5 = 6.00% chance of shatter or
30*(9-5)*.1 = 12.00% chance of shatter.

I guess i am suggesting that transparent combat-supply activities under control of player would give better creditability to the game's results. 3hexes of 8 divisions attacking a lonely 1 division korps should be expected to shatter(regardless of supply readiness or entrenchment).

I am happy to hear that a fix for divisional units will be made, such that sub divisional units can have same / simliar readiness as remainder of korps.

I am thinking of postponing my current game until the next edition is released. I hope that there will be enough similarity of data structures that one can transpose a 3.2 game into 3.3 or will it be 4.0 ?

The reply to my turn 25 by the Russians is attached. I do not know the Russian password...but i suppose Arnoud could break it.

[Magnno44]

Hi there. Im following this bug discussion with interest as I'm one of the victims of it having played (spent alot of time) PBEM for several weeks.

Why not simply let the german rail-network collaps and lower the supply level of a rail-road hex to maximum 2 during blizzard turns (this should be possible to implement as there is a possibility to raise the supply to 10 during the first months for the germans)? This should reflect the what actually happend and will make german troops shatter as an effect. Maybe not the first 2-3 turns, but after some pounding by the russians the lines should easily be penetrated by the russian hordes.

I can't believe that this idea has not been up before and pls forgive me if I'm kicking in open doors here.

Magnus:rolleyes:

[Supervisor]

For Rick and Arnoud and Ed or others who are capable of breaking PBEM passwords. The attached file is the reply of the Russians to the German situation Dec 7 41.
I have not had a chance yet to look at the combat details, but 3 German units are reported to have shattered(for whatever reason). The far southern units are likely due to combat ratios...but with level 5 and 6 entrenchment - WHAT is ONE to do?

quote :
Without penalties of some kind, you will not see any shatters unless a unit is extremely weak, or when surrounded, making the game much tougher to follow the flow of history, within the range of player capabilities. endquote.
comment:
Are you suggesting that a "shatter" is very unlikely even if normal combat results in odds of something like 15:1 . I have seen Kiev actually hold the hex at such odds.
I think i would prefer shatter to be a possiblity when odds are substantial. Perhaps in odds of 10:1 of committed units, there is a 10% chance of shatter. At 11:1, it becomes 20% . Perhaps this percentage(10%, 20%) needs to be divided by entrenchment value or perhaps multiplied by 10% of the entrenchment values shortfall from a max entrenchment value[considering major cities].
ie. 12:1 gives 30% chance of shatter, with level 3 entrenchment this results with 30/3 = 10.00% chance of shatter or 30*(9-3)*.1 = 18.00% chance of shatter. Entrenchment level 5 results in
30/5 = 6.00% chance of shatter or
30*(9-5)*.1 = 12.00% chance of shatter.

My suggestion to eliminate the peculiar hidden 33% or 25% rule for shatter in Blizzard(other situations?) stands. One could encourage shatter due to impact upon Op point supply going to units as being less effective(due to winterizing the troops). ie. Blizzard op point impact upon korps readiness is 75% of what it is in summer. This applies to recovery, special supply and perhaps airlift supply. Alternatively, one could limit readiness to a max of 75% in blizzard.

I guess i am suggesting that transparent combat-supply activities under control of player would give better creditability to the game's results. 3hexes of 8 divisions attacking a lonely 1 division korps should be expected to shatter(regardless of supply, entrenchment).

I am happy to hear that a fix for divisional units will be made, such that sub divisional units can have same / simliar readiness as remainder of korps.

[RickyB]

Guys,

Thanks for the thoughts on this. Regarding the save game and password protection, I doubt anybody except Arnaud could decipher the save game without the password, and even he may not be able to do it. Of course, a good hacker may be able to but I don't believe any of us want to expend that kind of effort on a save game, but thanks.

Regarding the issue, here is how I see it. We want a solution that will fix the current shatters without causing major amounts of work. Now currently, a unit will generally not shatter outside of the early 1941 Soviet and Axis 1941 blizzard turns, unless its CV is reduced to an extremely low level, and even then there is only a chance (I think a leader check is also part of the check, etc). Now losses in combat are normally determined based only on ready men and equipment (and experience also). It is very difficult to destroy nearly all ready men and equipment in normal combat which makes a shatter under normal conditions very unlikely. This is where the current penalties fit in, as losses are based on the unadjusted readiness, but applied to the adjusted readiness, resulting in no strength left and a shatter.

Low readiness results in lower losses, but still leaves the unit with lower CV, but not normally in the range to shatter. Just cutting readiness for the defenders will lead to higher odds for the attacker, but the main impact there is to increase the chance of retreat rather than a shatter. Thus, just reducing the Axis supply levels won't have any major impact on shatters, just on losing ground, which is not really enough. To fix this would require majore changes to the current shatter formula, I am sure.

That is where my suggestion comes in. It amplifies the effect of lower readiness, which we want to be penalized, and keeps everything else the same. This has simplicity in programming changes, and should do what we want by making the low readiness units susceptible to shattering. Am I missing anything?

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by RickyB
I doubt anybody except Arnaud could decipher the save game without the password, and even he may not be able to do it. Of course, a good hacker may be able to but I don't believe any of us want to expend that kind of effort on a save game,

Rick, you don't have to break the protection on the save game file, you just hack the game program to cause the get-password subroutine to always return success, so the game thinks you typed in the right thing no matter what you actually type. The actual passwords in the save game file and what protection the save game file might be under becomes irrelevent since the game thinks you know the right password and correctly loads the save game. BTW, I don't believe there is any "protection" on the save file except for the passwords themselves. Arnaud probably did an XOR on the passwords to hide them from a simple check with a hexeditor (that can be overcome easily though), but the rest of the save game is the same I'll bet. Its just that the game won't run unless you know the password. Took me about 30 minutes to hack the game to do this on 3.1, I'll have to do it again for 3.2 but since I've done it once already it should be no problem. This is the one hack I know that you'll never see in WirHack.

Mike, I'll get to your save in a day or two, I'm kinda busy doing other things.

Am I missing anything?

Nope, you've got it right, now how do we get Arnaud to make this fix? If we can give him a save that shows the entire German line shattering within 2 or 3 turns, hopefully that will get his attention.

[MB00]

Ed / Ross :
I interrupted my son's machine in order to make this post. He will be pissed that i interrupted his diablo game. I still need to clear out my matrix email account. Work has reminded me that web based email is a no-no due to concerns of virus etc.

Magnno44: rail @ supply level 2
I disagree with this suggestion as you would need to decide what rail hexes are at level 2. If you are suggesting the entire rail net....i would be concerned for basic recovery let alone a little movement and airplane flying.

Ed / Rick B
I folded my German line. Several hexes at entrenchment level 5 or 6 shattered. While <100 squads appeared to fight, some 13000 manpower(650 squads?) decided to shatter. This is insane. I have decided to retreat to Berlin if necessary...while bombing the hell out of any russian unit that advances(ie leaves) from its cubbyhole entrenchment. You have my Dec 7, 41 send to Russia and the Dec 7,41 repost from the Russian to investigate the situation. Most German units are at entrenchment level 5-6, supply level is 5 or 6(rarely a 4), most Combat Values are 35+ . What more could a German do?

Rick B :
Quote:
"Rather than reducing the readiness to a third, but capping it at 25% (Arnaud wanted to keep this to give the Soviet attack some chance in the winter, but it should be the low readiness units penalized, not high), I suggest 2 things. First, square the readiness for the Axis, so a readiness of 50% is penalized to 25%, a 90% stays at 81%, and a 25% drops to 6.25%, with no minimum level as there is now. Second, reinstitute the Axis 1941 blizzard readiness penalty that I believe Arnaud removed, at a level of 10%. This way, a unit at 90% would drop to 81%, then be squared to 65% or so, while a unit at 50% would drop to 45%, then squared to 21% or so.

This would result in the high readiness units not shattering, while the medium level ones should still be okay, close to the current effect, with probably a few shatters, and a low readiness will shatter almost for sure. Definitely seems like it would play more realistically. Let us know. Arnaud may still not do it, but the above is fairly simple to do."


The above still keeps the twisted logic in the game. I dont think it is a benefit to the game. Especially when we would like new players(younger?) to play the scenario-with attendant need to educate them about the twisted logic. I wonder how many young gamers who have lost interest in the game in any fashion due to this incomprehensible/twisted logic....which is NOT documented. I suggest that Ed Cogburn put out a vote on the rule. How many of us want to continue the twisted <not documented> logic. If the vote decides to keep the twisted logic...then PLEASE put something in the combat report to indicate how/what happened!

I would much prefer retreats which can be understood, follow some rationality of logic. Shatters should be very limited and unusual events. I suspect that even the Jan 42 Russians could take advantage of repeated retreats to cut rail lines and put forward units entirely out of supply. Perhaps my work as a financial analyst biases me toward this economic(op points, max readiness) point of view. I stand by my suggestion of making changes to the max readiness and/or reducing winter efficiency of op points to create readiness in units....and forever OBLITERATING this "shatter blitzberg 41 rule".

Yes, i had forgot about the leadership impact upon shattering - perhaps explaining my Kiev fiasco of a recent game where a level 3 commander was providing special supply to Kiev...in the hope that Germans would not attack and it could be re-aligned to a better quality leader next turn - after the resupply. The things that stick in a wargamers memory.

Note, i may not be answering again until i can get my matrix account cleaned up to my own game computer. I recently got the LAN working in the house so i have internet on my own machine. The registration took me as an underage participant with parental followup requirements. Changing my password after Ross Moorhead had made a "fix" exasperated the problem. As said at the start...this email was accomplished via disrupting my son's machine and the game he had programmed for testing purposes. He is still asleep...but i am sure to catch it.

Mike B - Ottawa Canada.

[RickyB]

Mike B,

I guess I am not sure what the twisted logic of blizzards penalizing the low readiness units in my idea is. The Germans definitely had problems in the first winter due to unpreparedness for the blizzard, and thus should suffer penalties in the early blizzards of some kind. This was in large part due to lack of winter clothing and equipment such as low temp lubricants for everything, food to feed the soldiers (many froze in part because of a lack of food, although many would have frozen anyway, and the Soviets lost soldiers also), etc. Thus, a high readiness unit would only suffer a minor penalty from my idea of squaring the readiness as I would expect, while a low readiness unit would suffer a much higher readiness penalty. A low readiness unit would be the unit where many troops were unable to fight because their machineguns froze, they suffered frostbite, vehicles had to be abandones because the radiators froze and burst, etc. These units would still lost lots of men, which the regular WIR functions will not do for low readiness. Remember, shattered units return with their ready men and equipment - only the unready stuff is lost in a shatter, so it is not like the entire unit is lost.

Forcing the Germans in June and the Soviets in Blizzard to force the defenders to retreat will result in much tougher gains than currently. This may be a good idea for the Germans attacking to tighten the game up, but in blizzards would leave the Axis way too tough to beat come spring 1942, with losses much lower than historical.

Please let me or us know in more detail what you consider the problem with the suggested idea when you are back up with us.

Thanks!

[shane056]

G'Day All..
Interesting discussions todate, but could we be loosing the plot a wee bit with this issue, by advocating complicated fixes for this bug, thereby making it more complicated than it needs to be, and thus introduce even more bugs ??..

One of the reasons I started this thread, was to highlight the fact that if you (the axis player) choose not to attack during the blizzard period, and have already dug in (ie.. have reasonable entrenchment values) and have built up supplies (ie.. have increased the supply & readiness values), then the axis forces should clearly be able to weather out the initial soviet blizzard attacks, without too many losses being incurred.

As I have stated before, this game must allow for different strategies to be exercised, if it is still to have an ongoing appeal, otherwise, re-running the 1941 scenario will always turnout with the axis side being heavily punished during the blizzard period.

You could end up with a situation of say no axis movements from the beginning of October onwards, resulting in high entrenchments and supply values to the axis forces, only to be arbitarily shattered on the first blizzard turn, in the beginning of December. NOT ON! In reality, if the axis forces, had, had, say 6 to 8 weeks to dig in, rest and build up their supplies, prior to any soviet winter attacks, there would have been much, much, fewer withdrawals occuring than actually happened.

So, please allow in the game modelling, the situation of an axis player being in a heavy defencesive posture, with high entrenchment, supply and readiness values, therefore the axis should be almost impervious to the blizzrd effects, until weeded out of their defensive positions and forced out into the open.

Thanks ..Shane

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by shane056
G'Day All..
Interesting discussions todate, but could we be loosing the plot a wee bit with this issue, by advocating complicated fixes for this bug, thereby making it more complicated than it needs to be, and thus introduce even more bugs ??..

First, it is an historical fact that the Germans weren't ready for winter, and not just because they didn't stop and dig in. They weren't ready because they didn't plan for it to begin with. Taking away the penalty wouldn't be fair or accurate.

Second, Rick's plan does reward those who stop and dig in and raise readiness, so I don't understand what the argument is.

[MikeB]

"Twisted Logic" ...to Mike B...means gamesmanship. Ie. doing something that is rationally wrong...but correct with respect to how a game handles the data. In this case, the gamer arbitrarily reduces his readiness of troops in order to avoid shattering. The higher readiness he has - the more combat value he has - the more suspect to shattering the unit becomes. This seems counter to military sense of the concept that more combat value is better than less.
Regardless of rationality....if only 10% of the troops show up to fight(committed), then your troops will lose the position regardless. The catastrophic additional loss due to shatter is beyond your control and hence very discouraging to play.
Perhaps the above is realistic warfare in defending with "just enough but not too much." The fine(small print) details.

The arguement is not whether there should exist a penalty. I think we can all agree that a penalty should exist.

Also, my arguement/concern is that a war game simulation should be a study of alternative strategies(Mike B's mindless thought). It appears that WIR is currently somewhat incapable of allowing a rationale German to stop attacking in mud/snow and build up entrenchment and supply capability. Yes, the blizzard was a mess that was not planned for in the actual 1941 historical campaign. MUST we be restricted to this event in playing/studying alternative strategies?

I think most of us are somewhat nonfriendly to the undocumented "shatter" result. We cannot ascertain what happened to the shatter unit strength. What part of it vaporized. What is impact upon experience of "recovered" strength @ Berlin. It is this "unknown" which truely annoys us...or at least me.

My observation of a sample combat is where 10% of the available German troops are committed to a defensive battle. The committed germans get their asses kicked. Fine. The UNDOCUMENTED rule
is that of the remaining 90%, a good 40% could disappear in vapor and the remaining 60% appear as
reinforcements in Berlin(if all units of defensive korps were at exactly 60% readiness). At what experience level they return...has never yet been addressed in this thread. I suspect they return at the experience level appropriate for that timeperiod. ie. they have likely lost significant experience points in addition to the 40% of the 90% strength that became vapor.

Has anyone clarified the combat report screen with respect to entrenchment. Entrenchments supposedly divide the actual losses by entrenchment. Are the reported losses after adjustment for entrenchment or not?
As all units are somewhat influenced by "reinforcements", it is difficult for most of us to investigate this aspect.

For my current game, we allowed the Russians to save twice from Aug 10, 41 through Oct 31, 41. This built up extra Russian op points, likely production of unit strength, and likely entrenchment levels. The Germans were stymied in the south @ Kiev and subsequent Russian entrenchment levels. The Germans are pulling back from their Dec 7, 41 advance...so far by 5-7 hexes @ Dec 28, 41. Movement attrition is happening...yet again the amount is unreported....unless one does detail record keeping of component strengths before move and after move. The Russian player has suggested he stop advancing at a Leningrad - Kiev line. This remains to be seen.

I agree that Rick's plan is better than nothing. If you are going to do a fix anyway(yet to be seen as to convincing Arnoud)....i have amply put my foot in mouth belabouring my suggestion. Others are needed with their input.

Rick ...can you clarify the application of the 33% shatter rule or the square calculation. ie. average readiness of div/sub div of Korps is compared against the shatter limit(33%). If "average readiness > shatter limit" ... then shatter?[or is it probability of shatter?] ...but you increased the number from 25% to 33% in past ...to reduce shattering? As you can see, i am somewhat confused.
Use of the above 10% committed with average readiness 60% is reasonable as a benchmark or base. Is "average readiness" a simple average of individual units....or is it a weighted average of combat value of component units? How does one calculate combat value of a unit? The manual identifies combat calculations for each step of combat...but i am unaware of calculation of "combat value".

Is there a calculation that reduces(substantially?) the percentage of committed German troops in a combat in 41/42 blizzard...as in another hidden rule? ... or was my observation of combat a real aberation of random die roll?

I find i am coming up with even more questions...so this is lots for all to chew on.

Suggested vote survey :
1/ Have you played Campaign 41 as German against a human opponent?
2/ How many games?
3/ How many of the games got into Jan 42 with the blizzards?
4/ Are you satisfied with the blizzard shatter rules?
5/ How many games got into summer(June 42) ?
6/ Did the balance of forces seem appropriate?
7/ Would you like to see a reduction or elimination of the shatter rule?
8/ ...other suggestions are welcome....

MikeB of Ottawa Canada, Nov 12 2002, game time Dec 28, 41, playing German against Russia controlled by Kerry of NewZealand.

[RickyB]

MikeB,

Your post makes sense based on what you think is happening. However, the whole process is different than what your comments indicate you think it is. I don't think there is any twisted logic because your understanding of the process is not correct. In my prior post explaining the whole blizzard process background, I mention the blizzard penalty that you ask about here (the hidden rule that substantially reduces the combat strength). Average readiness is not used for anything - don't know where that thought came from, but the readiness of each unit is used for its strength calculation only. I will summarize it below, or maybe explain it all again by the time I am finished.

To summarize, the shatters are not caused by a check of actual average readiness versus an arbitrary 33% (or 25%) limit. Shattering, which lasts throughout the game when the results of combat meet the necessary criteria, is based on the unit CV, after combat, being below a certain limit, with modifiers due to leader check, maybe other things (combat odds maybe)??? I am not sure of any numbers, and it really doesn't matter to me as knowing exact numbers could result in gamey play.

The problem in 1941 blizzards is that losses are based on full normal unpenalized strength, meaning potential losses can be high (losses cannot be more than ready strength!). However, the blizzard penalty takes those losses from the modified strength, with a 25% readiness minimum limit. Before, the strength was modified to 25% of regular strength, but now it is 33%. Anyway, because of the above calculations, strength can drop to 0 after losses, which causes the massive odds calculation and the shatter. Because low readiness units can't lose as much but keep more of their strength, they are unlikely to lose all strength and thus hold up better to shatter checks.

My proposal, by squaring the readiness and eliminating or dropping the minimum readiness level, would mean a much smaller penalty on high readiness units, but leave the low readiness units to be penalized and thus risk shatters. I don't think there is anything illogical or gamey about this. The shatter will only happen if the normal shatter check is failed, based again strictly on remaining strength, as applied throughout the game.

Currently, the checks go similar to this (this is not the code but something like it must go):

Calc strength
Calc losses to fire
Calc adjusted strength=strength(*33% in blizzards or Soviets in early 1941)
Calc after combat strength=adj strength - losses
Calc shatter

The only change I suggest is to the calc adjusted strength line, which is probably one line of code, by multiplying by readiness a second time, rather than by 33%. Extremely simple change, no bugs (again, there is NO bug now, just an odd design decision), no other code to change. It gives exactly the logical result of unprepared units risking shatter, benfitting the rested German player rather than an aggressive player.

Please read this and the other post if things are still unclear, and let me know what still does not make sense so I can try to clarify the actual situation.

Regarding shatters, I have no idea what experience level units return with so I cannot answer that. I always thought they kept their experience but any replacements of course come on with the current experience.

Combat reports show actual losses, not some odd adjusted amount of losses. When a shatter occurs, I am not sure how the report ties to the unit strength minus any returned strength for the shattered unit, so that could be off, but I don't think so.

Does this cover everything??? It may be good when you have so much to stick to just one topic, and put the other questions in another post.

[MikeB]

ok, so i was all wet about my interpretation of what/how the blizzard calculation went.

I will try to document a sample combat, combat results screen and see if we can make sense of it. - perhaps private email? Somehow, i think i need the example to start earlier in the combat calculation to capture commitment of troops from available troops to clearly see it.

While i agree that exact numbers can lead to "gamey play" which is to be discouraged among true gamers...I feel a need to know an example situation somewhat better. Agreed, leadership and combat odds likely flavour into the calculation which is perhaps somewhat difficult to include, but then again - entrenchment should also be a consideration.

i see i am rambling again. private email to Rick will followup.

[RickyB]

Mike,

You can use the forum links to e-mail me, or do it direct at rbancroft@att.net. I will help as far as I can, but the current method is twisted. However, we should be able to analyze a situation under both the current situation and what I propose doing.

Thanks!

[shane056]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn



First, it is an historical fact that the Germans weren't ready for winter, and not just because they didn't stop and dig in. They weren't ready because they didn't plan for it to begin with. Taking away the penalty wouldn't be fair or accurate.

Second, Rick's plan does reward those who stop and dig in and raise readiness, so I don't understand what the argument is.

Thanks Ed for replying to my post, must disagree with you though....

Hmmm.. Historical fact you say.. From what I have read, the winter period was not an unknown quanity, or a total surprise to the wehrmacht, as is generally believed, as they had campaigned in Russia during WW1, plus Germany herself freezes during winter. It was allowed for, and planned in ie.. On reaching their objectives X number of divs were to return to Germany whilst the rest were to winter it out in Russia. That was their plan, but it didn't happen that way of course!

It was just that provision for getting the winter clothing, lubricants, additives etc up to the front lines, in time was not allowed or prepared for in their logistic plan, which is basically the problem, as this army was still attacking ie.. in offensive mode when the full effects of winter hit, and consequently up to this point, their main priority was for ammunition, fuel, food etc to be brought up to the troops, not the winterisation gear.

My view is that, it was OKH, who failed to organise the logistics properly for the weather changes, as the rear echelon areas and the Luftwaffe managed to eventually get their winter gear, why was it not so for the fronline troops ? Guderian has been quoted as badgering OKH a number of times to get the winter items, all brought forward, and issued to the fronline troops etc.. This is historical fact. They had the gear, but it was way back in the rear areas, if not still in Germany. This was criminal negligence by the generals, no mistake.

So where am I going with this.. Well my next view is that, if the conference of CoS held at Heeresgruppe Mitte HQ after the Vyasma / Bryansk battles, and chaired by Halder himself, had elected to cease operations, which v.Rundstedt & v.Leeb advocated, rather than continue with Op Typhoon, then these winter preparations would clearly have gotten top priority in the limited logistics transport capacity available then, to be brought forward, as the army would be in defensive mode, and thus not be needing the huge amounts of ammo, fuel etc to sustain an offensive posture. It was this conference that led to the ruination of the German Army in the east. A good book to read is "Operation Barbarossa by Bryan.I.Fugate".. Most enlightening. A good thought provoking read..

So if the axis player were to, at this point, choose to stop offensive movements, dig in and build up supplies, then the winter gear that the Germans had way way back in the rear, would be brought forward in time to largely negate the effects of winter, and preserve the army. In other words, No Shattering when attacked during the blizzard period.

This can be done, simply by writing some code, to allow for the following..
If entrenchment and supply is >= 3 then "No shatter ..Hold ..Low losses"
If entrenchment =2 and supply is >= 3 then "No shatter ..Hold ..Increased losses"
If entrenchment =1 and supply is >= 3 then "No shatter ..Retreat"
If entrenchment =0 and supply is <= 2 then "Existing rules apply"

This is my basic outline, is it too simplistic, as clearly I place emphasis on the entrenchment value ..comments please? ..Thanks Shane

[MikeB]

Thankyou Shane for a documented look at history. While i will likely never get access to such physical documentation, it is much appreciated.

Unfortunately, i have to disagree with your last suggestion. Consideration of combat odds, leaders, bombers as well as supply and entrenchment are necessary evils. Op points? in HQ of attacker/defender?

One might make a case for level 6 supply with level 6 entrenchment...but this begins to sound suspiciously like the uniqueness of the dreaded "blizzard" rule.

I am still documenting my case to Rick about my experienced Dec 14,41 German defence lack of achievement. I almost had one sample battle done...when proof reading had identified an error of interpreting my source data. To be safer, i am working toward a 2nd battle documentation as well. Not likely for another 48 hours though.
The document will be in excel format. I can forward to any who may be interested.

Mike B of Ottawa Canada.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by shane056

So if the axis player were to, at this point, choose to stop offensive movements, dig in and build up supplies, then the winter gear that the Germans had way way back in the rear, would be brought forward in time to largely negate the effects of winter, and preserve the army.

It was much more than simply a lack of transport capacity. The Germans held emergency clothing drives among the civilian population to get winter clothing for the troops in Russia. In this case they didn't have the supplies themselves, much less the transport capacity to get them to the front. They planned for victory in one summer campaign, they never prepared for a winter war, so in many categories like clothing and lubricants, they simply didn't have a large enough stockpile of these supplies available.

[RickyB]

One other thing regarding items such as winter clothing that I read recently in War Without Garlands, or maybe another book. Some German units involved in Typhoon had received winter clothing before the really cold weather arrived, but were ordered by their officers to not use them because the officers felt it would slow down the infantry too much because of its bulk. Amazing to hear.

[MikeB]

While not completely perfect, an excel spreadsheet of 3 situations was emailed to Rick today for his evaluation and 2cents worth.

I concluded it is better to retreat the german army out of harms way from Orel to west of Mogiliev.

I have now advanced to Feb 2, 1942 in my game with my New Zealand partner.

Mike B of Ottawa, Canada.

[RickyB]

Here are my results from some testing of the blizzard changes, based on making the readiness the square of readiness rather than the current method. At 50% readiness, entrenchment 3, the German units never shattered, against a fairly strong Soviet attack by 4 armies. At 40%, the unit shattered 5 times out of 10 against the same attack. At 30%, the unit shattered 8 of 10 times. Against moderate Soviet forces, the 30% stack shattered 7 of 10 times.

By the way, I stumbled across a good prevention for shatters in this test. If the unit gets reinforced from its HQ, it never shattered, because the reinforcements came in with higher readiness (a unit can only reinforce if over 50% readiness).

This seems pretty good to me - maybe a little too much shattering at 30% and 40%, but the HQ was a little low on ops points and 1 division randomly was getting its readiness dropped further. Don't know if it can be easily tweaked from this, or not.

Any comments?