Soviet C&C difficulties June/July/August 1941. WITE 2.0

[EwaldvonKleist]

@ warspite
A multiplayer game with 20+ players with hirarchy from Stalin / Hitler, Stavka/OKW/OKH to Fronts/AGs to Armies would be awesome. Commanders dismissed or promoted by their superiors, rivalry among them and everyone claiming that he did better then all the rivals. Hitler cant See every Detail everywhere while Army commander at Rostov has few Knowledge about the situation at Leningrad.
But impossible to realized something like this (unfortunately)

[rmonical]

If Soviet operational capability rapidly increased in July, August, September, then I agree with the earlier comment that perhaps this could be easily reflected in leadership values. Thus using an existing game mechanic.
I assume the attack/no attack idea is already reflected in the current leadership/combat system. So Soviet leadership nerf early on would be reflected here.

I heartily endorse the comment that we should not introduce throw-away feature. So if there is a feature then it should apply to both sides and throughout the game. So if there is a chance a Soviet unit cannot move then there is also a chance an Axis unit cannot - especially during the first blizzard. So the Axis player also gets a little command and control chaos. Indeed, perhaps the blizzard rules can simply be replaced by an Axis leadership and national morale decrease during the first blizzard.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: rmonical

I heartily endorse the comment that we should not introduce throw-away feature. So if there is a feature then it should apply to both sides and throughout the game. So if there is a chance a Soviet unit cannot move then there is also a chance an Axis unit cannot - especially during the first blizzard. So the Axis player also gets a little command and control chaos. Indeed, perhaps the blizzard rules can simply be replaced by an Axis leadership and national morale decrease during the first blizzard.

Even though it's veering away from the original topic, but I disagree with morale or leadership decrease during the first winter. That's not capturing the issue at all. The problem for the Germans in the first winter was largely twofold:

1) Their units were burnt out, despite knowing the risk of burning out the divisions the leadership still decided to push forward after the mud period, believing that "one final push" may be enough to win the war. Thus the German units in December 1941 were badly exhausted, essentially standing in the open without cover and far too extended.

2) The German logistics system collapsed. They had a very hard time delivering ammunition, fuel and other supplies to the front so that the combat efficiency and mobility of the divisions dropped significantly. By early December 1941 some 60-80% of the German locomotives in the East were not operational. In December on average only 53 trains per day were railed into the Eastern districts and in January 1942 only 46. The German forces though needed a minimum of around 75-80 trains. And that number drops significantly if one calculates the actual amount of trains that reached the depots close to the front. AGC main supply line, the Brest - Baranovici - Minsk - Orsha - Smolensk - Vyazma line, for example could only send around eight trains to the front per day. With the army group in theory needing 32.

I've never been a friend of the artificial cuts to German CV during the first winter. Introduce a severe penalty on the rail capacity to starve the Germans and have their CV drop (WitW has severe CV penalties for lack of ammunition or fuel) that way and keep the artificial cut to a minimum to simulate the equipment failures.

As to prevent German runaways, one major issue for the Germans during the winter was the lack of mobility. So a large-scale withdrawal would have risked losing a significant amount of the heavy equipment. Therefore, if it can be done, ramp up equipment attrition when moving during the first winter and have the German player make a choice. Either stand and fight and risk troops getting beaten up or cut-off, or run away but losing a painful and possibly irreplaceable amount of equipment in the process.

[EwaldvonKleist]

Completely agree with sigup, Soviet Counteroffensive should made possible by german overextension not by artificial rules.
Blizzard=less supply, more attrition, less mobility through lack of supplies-->enough to allow for soviet attack
But if Germans stockpile after mud and dig trenches, no soviet attack possible

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

But if Germans stockpile after mud and dig trenches, no soviet attack possible

It shouldn't be possible to completely prevent Soviet success during winter. Severe German rail problems (even before the amount of trains reaching the front was below the required amount) began to manifest itself during October. September 1941 saw the highest amount of trains railed east with 70 per day on average. In October this figure dropped to 60, and in November to 57.

So, of course, a wise German player will not attack in late November 1941 when the logistical base is not there anymore. However, if the Germans don't attack it should be possible for the Soviets to attack and a while not pushing through - increase German supply difficulty by forcing them to expend ammo and fuel and prevent a large-scale build-up of stockpiles. Of course, the Soviet player then has to find the right balance between spoiling attacks in November to prevent German supply build-up and keeping units fresh for the blizzard. But that's the thing, make it a game of choices and not a game of restrictions.

[RedLancer]

Please don't stray off topic. This thread is about Soviet C2 in the first three months. If you want to discuss blizzard rules please start another thread as I get easily confused when referencing people's ideas.

[EwaldvonKleist]

I agree with you Red Lancer and sorry for my off topic post.
C&C: Same as with blizzard, as few artificial rules as possible. I like the leader roll idea for MPs similiar to the CV one: Leader roll influences MP, allowing for more or less than standard MP for both sides. During the early turns soviet leaders are hindered a bit by demanding unusual good rolls for full MP, so some units maybe have close to 0 MPs while others have normal MPs.

[RedLancer]

From the WitW Manual:

11.2.4. Administrative (Admin) Rating
The Admin leader rating is used for determining the
actual number of movement points a unit will have
during its turn, checking for repair of damaged aircraft
and ground elements, determining
the number of air directives an air HQ unit can be
assigned, and determining fuel and supplies wastage
as a result of air missions. When a motorized unit is
performing an admin leader check, leaders of Panzer
Army or Panzer Corps HQ units involved in the admin
leader check receive a +1 to their admin rating during
the check. Admin checks are specifically affected by the
actual number of support squad ground elements in the
leader’s HQ unit as compared to the HQ unit TOE (11.3).

I think Michael's original post suggests even more uncertainty than that delivered in a roll but I may be wrong. I like the idea of greater variation of handicap to upset plans but personally I wouldn't want to lose control when implementing my choices based on the hand dealt. The main reason for me being that it doesn't mesh with the perfect knowledge of the battlefield that the game gives me. I so wanted to like TOAW3 but hated it.

[EwaldvonKleist]

Thx, good to know it will be included, I don't own Witw so I did not know this.

[Aditia]

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

Thx, good to know it will be included, I don't own Witw so I did not know this.

Isn't this already in WITE? Initiative and Admin ratings are involved in determining MPs.
As stated before; the low MP that Soviets start with in the game is already simulating C2 problems.

Their equipment is better than the Germans, so the vastly reduced MP as compared to German units comes from C2 issues.

Don't see the problem that OP is stating.

For major issues with WITE, I would more look to the dynamics that performance of both sides in 1941 and 1942 has on the gameplay in 1943 to 1945.

[morvael]

The difference is you see MP available (after they were affected by rolls) and always can execute your perfect plan based on these known MPs. There will be no surprises, unit will always move where you want. Whereas you don't know how the rolls will end up in combat and can only have vague idea based on experience and knowledge of probability.

[morvael]

Imagine trying to move your unit without knowing MP beforehand, only when it refuses to move further you would know that it failed admin and initiative roll and had just 8 MP. And so you would have to choose between bold offensives (risking that the unit with most MP is not followed up and properly covered by slower units) or slow and safe movement.

[Aditia]

I understand that, but it solves a problem that does not exist..

You think that when Soviet Divisions got their orders to move somewhere, they went the opposite direction?
If anything, unlike the Germans, they actually knew the area, whereas most German units did not even bring someone who could read Cyrillic, making their outdated maps somewhat less effective.

No, they had shitty staff officers that made moving units ineffective, and they arrived at their locations staggered, resulting in piecemeal attacks (also already(over)simulated by the ineffective nature of soviet attacks early game).

[Michael T]

An observation. If I bought up this topic in a new board game forum, everyone would be in agreement that chaotic C&C for the Soviet in the early period is needed. The only debate would be how to best implement it.

Anyway let's not forget this entire thread is about WITE 2.0, it's not about repairing 1.0.

I have read some really good idea's from various people. My feeling is I want the Soviet to feel uncomfortable about his ability to co ordinate attacks (they will be worth doing in W2) and coordinating defensive works.

The current model (W1) is too easy on the Soviet in the early phases. We see MP's of around 12-16 for Inf ID. This allows great flexibility and freedom of choice. I think the range of 6-12 for most would be better with some bad surprises thrown in in a random fashion.

Whatever the case, the sense of chaos, disruption, orders not getting through needs to be captured.

DC3, a recent game on the subject tries to capture the same sense of chaos with a host of mechanisms not too dissimilar to what we are discussing here. It does a pretty good job.

As I believe W2 will be the premier PC game on this subject I think serious consideration to this facet of the design is warranted. W1 just doesn't hit the mark in this respect of early war C&C chaos in the Soviet system. It still works to well even with the bad leaders etc etc.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

The current model (W1) is too easy on the Soviet in the early phases. We see MP's of around 12-16 for Inf ID. This allows great flexibility and freedom of choice. I think the range of 6-12 for most would be better with some bad surprises thrown in in a random fashion.

Whatever the case, the sense of chaos, disruption, orders not getting through needs to be captured.

I grain of salt has to be used here. Yes on the right conditions u can get above 12 but that mostly happens when units stays stationary and MPs are transfered.
So yes in a game that u have with Mainsten63 thats might be the case, but if its a more fluid situasion as in most prevaiient in AARs u dont get that high MPs often. Less units for some reason are stationary. Those will generally also have less fatigue.
At least, its very conditional.

Kind regards,
Rasmus

[Aditia]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

An observation. If I bought up this topic in a new board game forum, everyone would be in agreement that chaotic C&C for the Soviet in the early period is needed. The only debate would be how to best implement it.

Anyway let's not forget this entire thread is about WITE 2.0, it's not about repairing 1.0.

I have read some really good idea's from various people. My feeling is I want the Soviet to feel uncomfortable about his ability to co ordinate attacks (they will be worth doing in W2) and coordinating defensive works.

The current model (W1) is too easy on the Soviet in the early phases. We see MP's of around 12-16 for Inf ID. This allows great flexibility and freedom of choice. I think the range of 6-12 for most would be better with some bad surprises thrown in in a random fashion.

Whatever the case, the sense of chaos, disruption, orders not getting through needs to be captured.

DC3, a recent game on the subject tries to capture the same sense of chaos with a host of mechanisms not too dissimilar to what we are discussing here. It does a pretty good job.

As I believe W2 will be the premier PC game on this subject I think serious consideration to this facet of the design is warranted. W1 just doesn't hit the mark in this respect of early war C&C chaos in the Soviet system. It still works to well even with the bad leaders etc etc.

OK, I don't categorically disagree here.

I guess my need to respond to these kind of topics stems from the following: I think WITE is a great game, also specifically because of the fact that it is not overly 'historical/realistic'.

What players here need to realise is that the German generals did amazingly in June-October 1941 considering the cards that they held, whereas the Soviet leadership did abysmally. If you would somehow recreate a realistic game setting of the Eastern front with the same 'hand of cards' so to say, I am convinced that when 2 players of equal skill meet the Axis player would get crushed in 1941.

I guess what I am trying to say is: be careful what you wish for; A 'realistic' simulation of the Eastern Front with 2 smart gamers at the helm would, because of the above, be a poop game...

Imagine having to deal with the following as the Axis:

- Supply line breaking down in front of Smolensk
- Panzers breaking down at rapid pace just by moving and no spare parts to repair them (we are talking Pz Divisions with only 20 to 40 panzer strength by end of July 1941)
- Artillery not firing when arriving in front of Smolensk, because there are no shells
- HQ units losing men and trucks at rapid pace because of lack of rear area security on top of breaking down on Western USSR's excuses for roads.

And while all that is happening, you are against a mighty gamer, instead of incompetent generals ordered by Stalin to attack everywhere, not doing you the favors that the Soviets did the Germans historically.

And of course, then there would be the much higher attrition simulating the ferocity with which the Soviet infantryman in generally fought.

I guess yes, if you want to play that game, the soviet player needs to have his freedom of decision nerfed and have units not do what they are ordered to do.

[Michael T]

Since 2010 there have been discussions on this forum regarding the lack of Soviet C&C chaos portrayed in the early game. There was usually a general consensus that his was the case, even from pro Soviet types. But the discussions always degenerated in to the usual us v them and went off the rails and ended up in a debate over the blizzard or victory conditions or whatever. Ultimately the powers to be would step in and say words to the effect of 'best left to W2'. Well W2 is coming. Here is a chance to have input.

If enough people want some C&C rules that reflect the chaotic nature of early war Soviet problems and give a true sense of that period then speak up. If the opposite view is taken by the majority I won't swim against the tide. I want more chaos and disruption. That's pretty clear. I can't really add much more.

[Denniss]

What about using a random roll for every hex moved and if the roll failed a soviet units pays 2x or 3x the normal movement points?
This could be 3x with a high chance to get this roll in June, 2x with same high roll chance in August and 2x with lowered roll chance in September.
Possible addition: If an attack is ordered and unit gets the roll for 3x/2x and doesn't have enough MP for this it should have some or all MPs expended for this failed attempt.
Probably not applicable for AI or just in reduced form.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

The problem for me is that if you introduce all of these random failures for the Soviets you need to balance it by taking away some of the mobility/power advantages the Germans currently have early on. For me at the moment the way a German player uses their skill advantage in the early turns is by is by using their mobility/power advantage to make large scale moves that knock huge numbers of Soviets out of the game and gobble up territory/factories in the South - forcing the Soviet player to choose between North and South. If you matched the Soviet C&C issues with a corresponding reduction in German power/mobility then you would be left with a situation where the German player could not make those 'big moves' and instead was forced to play a much more small-scale game where they would be trying to take advantage of local C&C failures. If anything this could make the game harder for the Germans as the Soviet player would be more able to correct their own mistakes (or those mistakes caused by C&C breakdown) and plug those local gaps in their next turn.

I think the balance in the current game is slightly off - if you have two players of equivalent skill there seems to be very little chance of the German player reaching Moscow in 41 and even less chance of them managing it the next Summer. For me the probability (all other things being equal) should be around 66/33 at both points in the Soviets favour. Even with that tweak you are left with the issue whereby post Summer 42 you either have a very early German win or the inevitable Soviet advance on Berlin through 43-45 - a situation that is historically accurate but not particularly engaging for either player. One interesting solution you could have to that is an alternative 'what if' campaign where the North African campaign/invasion of Italy has failed and the Germans have enough resources to continue to attack into 43 or at least try and hold firm in Russia.

[Icier]

Maybe the simplest way to capture the Confusion of the Soviets in the first two months with transport/supply/communication is that each units
dices to see if it moves or stays. As these are weekly moves ( I presume they still keeping weekly moves), say start off with a high number to
move & then decrease each week.