Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German Design [8D] - Bread (Axis) vs Beethoven (Soviet)

[Beethoven1]

I started up again, and at this point have disbanded pretty much all the HQs and artillery/support units that I can disband on turn 1. There are some more that I can't disband until turn 2 for various reasons, and in subsequent turns I will keep getting more new artillery etc which I will keep on disbanding.

But anyway, as a result of that, my manpower pool is already up to 800,000 men (normally it is 600,000 or so on the first turn).



In addition, there are another 200,000 men serving air air support staff in airfields. Since we are not going to be using any planes, these 200,000 men will be freed up, and they will become infantrymen instead.



So in total, I have already freed up an additional 400k manpower by going without army/corps HQs, artillery, and an air force. That is more or less enough men for an entire additional Front of ~40 divisions. What's more, the Soviet HQs and artillery etc starts off under-strength, so it would normally be eating up reinforcements in subsequent turns. That won't be happening in this game, for better or worse.

And here is another interesting item. It costs 8 AP to make a new rifle division (or other unit like a naval infantry brigade):



Normally this would be a prohibitively expensive AP cost until the cost goes down in 1942. Normally, most Soviet AP in 1941 will probably end up being spent replacing generals with better commanders...

However... I am opting out of that whole Generals/armies thing. STAVKA will control everything, central planning in action. And that means that I will be saving a lot of AP.

And conveniently, since I am not using artillery/planes/etc, that frees up a lot of manpower, which can either be used to fill my existing divisions with higher TOE, or alternatively to start making new divisions earlier and get more counters on the map more quickly.

I am not using my AP on this QUITE yet, because I have some other priorities first. However, by maybe about turn 3 or so I could probably start doing this if I want.

[K62_]

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1

It is pretty straightforward. We think that it is pretty much impossible for Soviets to lose, especially if they abandon the south, and this is an attempt to test out that theory. And yes, that is consistent with the other tongue in cheek AAR. A good number of players have argued that the Axis should win a sudden death victory if Soviets abandon the south. Given the large nerfs to Soviets from our special rules (especially the complete lack of Army HQs and generals), if Axis can't win with a sudden death victory (and win fairly easily), that should prove the point to a considerable extent. At least that is the idea. We'll see if it plays out like that or not though.

The most you'll prove is that the T16 victory condition needs to be adjusted. Also, it would be a bit more convincing if you did the test against someone who actually disagreed with you.

[Beethoven1]

ORIGINAL: K62

The most you'll prove is that the T16 victory condition needs to be adjusted.

That wouldn't be a contradiction to the point I don't think, it would support it. If e.g. Taganrog (Oct 17 historical capture) and Mariopol (Oct 8 historical capture) were VPs, that would make the case for defending the south a lot stronger. Both of those could potentially be help until or beyond the historical capture dates if Soviets throw enough into the defense of the Donbas, because they are deep enough into the Soviet Union that Axis should have logistical problems advancing by that point.

On the other hand, if the threshold for a sudden death Axis victory were simply lowered without changing anything else, or alternatively if e.g. Kirovgrad and Cherkasy became VPs, then that would make abandoning the south a mandatory strategy. Since there is no way you can hold Kirovgrad/Cherkasy until the historical dates to stop Axis from getting 6 bonus VP, that would make it even more important to make sure you hold cities like Kalinin and Tula to avoid a sudden death loss, and consequently Soviets would have to abandon the south and only try to defend the north/center.

Also, it would be a bit more convincing if you did the test against someone who actually disagreed with you.

Bread was trying to play against tyronec with this strategy, but MSAG apparently got into contact with tyronec first. Also I think in his other AAR Bread mentioned that he would be willing to try it (as Soviets) against anyone else who has time for another game and who thinks that it is a bad strategy for Soviets. As for me, I don't have enough time for another game, trying to do this one quickly will be the most I can manage.

[RedJohn]

ORIGINAL: K62

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1

It is pretty straightforward. We think that it is pretty much impossible for Soviets to lose, especially if they abandon the south, and this is an attempt to test out that theory. And yes, that is consistent with the other tongue in cheek AAR. A good number of players have argued that the Axis should win a sudden death victory if Soviets abandon the south. Given the large nerfs to Soviets from our special rules (especially the complete lack of Army HQs and generals), if Axis can't win with a sudden death victory (and win fairly easily), that should prove the point to a considerable extent. At least that is the idea. We'll see if it plays out like that or not though.

The most you'll prove is that the T16 victory condition needs to be adjusted. Also, it would be a bit more convincing if you did the test against someone who actually disagreed with you.

Which will be the most the game has changed in terms of adjusting VPs since inception, no?

My belief in the strategy has no bearing on how convincing the game is. I will play to the best of my ability, and utilize everything I know as the axis to try and win sudden death. Some said in my AAR that good logistics is the key to ruining this strategy. I aim to have a strong logistics net to see how true their claim is.

And as Beethoven said, I still have an open offer for anyone to play as the axis against me where I'll utilize this strategy.

[tyronec]

Bread was trying to play against tyronec with this strategy, but MSAG apparently got into contact with tyronec first. Also I think in his other AAR Bread mentioned that he would be willing to try it (as Soviets) against anyone else who has time for another game and who thinks that it is a bad strategy for Soviets. As for me, I don't have enough time for another game, trying to do this one quickly will be the most I can manage.

Am not sure if this is intended to be humorous or a not but it seems in poor taste to me. Maybe the game is advantage Soviet at present, am not sure. What I am certain of is that the devs. have been continually working to make the game as historically accurate as they can. I can't think of any game I have played where there has been a higher level of support from fixing bugs, making improvements and answering an endless number of queries.

[Rosencrantus]

+1

[Hardradi]

ORIGINAL: RedJohn

My opener is the standard Lvov pocket. I am partial to copying Tyronec's approach and going as far east as possible for the followup encirclement, as this also risks killing off Malinovsky turn 2 due to the southern front staying locked.

However this game I wanted to ensure nothing of value escapes Lvov. Chances are the majority of the units in SW front will be sent to reserve, and there's very little I could do to stop that if I went with that long opener. So, Lvov is taken and the area encircled. PZG1 will be split and likely continue to Odessa, taking Crimea ASAP. It is one of the few places Beethoven might defend, and it is a bitch to take if the soviets prepare.

Would I be right is saying it does not look like you have split part of 2nd Panzer Group for use in the south?

[Beethoven1]

ORIGINAL: tyronec

What I am certain of is that the devs. have been continually working to make the game as historically accurate as they can. I can't think of any game I have played where there has been a higher level of support from fixing bugs, making improvements and answering an endless number of queries.

I am a bit surprised by this comment because as far as I don't think I (or Bread as far as I am aware) have said anything to the contrary. Indeed, I have expressed the same sentiments as you previously in various other threads. I think (and have said before) the game keeps gradually improving with successive patches, the devs have said that they are trying to make incremental improvements to avoid the risk of over-correcting and having wild swings in balance, and I think that is the right approach. I made a HOI4 multiplayer mod that was played frequently for a long time and which tried to make HOI4 more realistic/historical and balanced, so I am familiar from that experience with the difficulties of balancing a game like this, which is why I think the devs are generally take the right approach with regards to patches, taking into account feedback, etc.

Am not sure if this is intended to be humorous or a not but it seems in poor taste to me. Maybe the game is advantage Soviet at present, am not sure.

I am not sure if this is a reference to the thread title or to Bread's attempt to reach out to you to see if you wanted to play against him. With regards to the latter, I said: "Bread was trying to play against tyronec with this strategy, but MSAG apparently got into contact with tyronec first."

What I meant by "this strategy" was simply abandoning the south, and nothing more. To be clear, if Bread had played against you, he would NOT have disbanded all his armies/artillery/air force etc like I am doing. If you were thinking that, then I understand why you would be unhappy and even offended, since that from your perspective would have probably ruined your game for you! That is not what I meant to imply, sorry if that was unclear!

The purpose of disbanding artillery/army HQs etc in this AAR is to serve as a supplement to Bread's other AAR. In that, it is pretty clear he is winning easily as Soviets by abandoning the south. However, a good number of readers seem unconvinced by that, so we are doing this AAR to try to add strength to the argument, by making it tougher for Soviets and seeing if the same sort of thing happens or not (Soviets stopping the Axis advance in the north/center and building up a huge OOB). Another criticism one might make of the other AAR is that the Germany player is not (as far as I know, anyway), the most experienced. So in this AAR we have Bread playing Germany, and Bread is at this point a very experienced Germany player, and moreover he knows the Soviet strategy in advance. So if this ends up at all similarly, it should help remove any doubt that Soviets abandoning the south is too good of a strategy.


Alternatively, if you are making a reference to the thread title, yes, of course it is obviously a joke (just as Loki's original comment was obviously a joke, you can tell by the smiley face emoticons if nothing else). It should go without saying, but nobody seriously thinks the game is an anti-German conspiracy!

[Beethoven1]

Now, some further discussion and clarification with regards to the actual substantive issue of game balance -

I do think it is basically impossible for Axis to win in 1941 against a Soviet player that knows what they are doing (especially if Soviets abandon the south, but I don't think the issue is so simple as just "Soviets are too strong/Axis is too weak," relative to historical. However, I do think there is a significant balance issue (just talking about 1941 here), and I think it relates specifically to comparative balance in the south as compared to the north/center.

In some respects, Soviets are too weak relative to historical. I can't think of a single game (with an AAR) where Soviets have held on as well as they did historically in the south for the first month or two or three, holding cities like Odessa and Kiev as long as historical. The only way anyone has gotten anything close to that is if either the Axis player is new and doesn't really know what they are doing, or in the K62-tyronec game where Soviets took advantage of running a lot of small naval patrol missions that could not be intercepted (a game flaw) by Axis fighters, and which makes more missions fly than are apparently supposed to. And even in that, he didn't actualy hold for as long as historical, instead tyronec just gave up after he couldn't take it much faster than historical.

Another way that Soviets are often weaker than historical is that often the area around Vyazma falls significantly sooner than historical. Historically, it held as long as it did (into October) to a considerable degree because Guderian's Panzergruppe was... sent south! This is something that will not generally happen in the game, because there is no reason to send them south to encircle Kiev after sending them up to Smolensk. So this too is, indirectly, related to the south.

But meanwhile, despite Vyazma often falling faster than historical, Smolensk often holds longer than historical. Soviets can also stonewall the Axis advance in the north relative to historical. The only way Axis can take the north is pretty much if they catch the Soviet player off guard (and often if they are attacking with more motorized units than historical).

The Road to Leningrad scenario may produce more historical Axis advance in the north (and Axis could even be too strong possibly in it), but the difference between that and a grand campaign is that Soviets can send additional troops more quickly to the north than historical (especially if they abandon the south or have a weak defense in the south). The key in the north is speed. To have any hope of historical advance in the north, the first few turns are absolutely vital for the Axis. If they don't advance a long way in the first few turns, and if the Soviet player simply deploys enouggh units in the north quickly and allows them time to dig in, get supply, and build forts, then the Axis advance will be stymied.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1

I do think it is basically impossible for Axis to win in 1941 against a Soviet player that knows what they are doing (especially if Soviets abandon the south, but I don't think the issue is so simple as just "Soviets are too strong/Axis is too weak," relative to historical. However, I do think there is a significant balance issue (just talking about 1941 here), and I think it relates specifically to comparative balance in the south as compared to the north/centre.

Isn't this an example of the game being balanced though? Assuming you aren't seeing lots of the opposite outcomes where the Axis player is losing by the late 1941/1942 sudden loss checks? I'd only be expecting to see Axis auto victories in 1941 where there is a big mis-match in experience. If the players are broadly similarly matched I'd be expecting the majority of games to be going into 1944.

That said I think I agree with the general principle of this experiment - that if the Soviet side is able to avoid Sudden Loss despite all the restrictions there may be balance issues that need to be addressed. Will be interested to see how it turns out.

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

Isn't this an example of the game being balanced though? Assuming you aren't seeing lots of the opposite outcomes where the Axis player is losing by the late 1941/1942 sudden loss checks? I'd only be expecting to see Axis auto victories in 1941 where there is a big mis-match in experience. If the players are broadly similarly matched I'd be expecting the majority of games to be going into 1944.

That said I think I agree with the general principle of this experiment - that if the Soviet side is able to avoid Sudden Loss despite all the restrictions there may be balance issues that need to be addressed. Will be interested to see how it turns out.

+1

[Beethoven1]

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

Isn't this an example of the game being balanced though? Assuming you aren't seeing lots of the opposite outcomes where the Axis player is losing by the late 1941/1942 sudden loss checks? I'd only be expecting to see Axis auto victories in 1941 where there is a big mis-match in experience. If the players are broadly similarly matched I'd be expecting the majority of games to be going into 1944.

That said I think I agree with the general principle of this experiment - that if the Soviet side is able to avoid Sudden Loss despite all the restrictions there may be balance issues that need to be addressed. Will be interested to see how it turns out.

I agree that it is reasonable to regard it as being historically balanced if Axis has a very difficult time winning an outright 1941 sudden loss victory. However, I don't think it is reasonable that Soviets should be able to totally abandon an entire broad sector of the front (e.g. the entire south) and still avoid a sudden loss, at least if it is intended for Axis to ever be able to "win" in terms of the VP system.

I think a big part of the issue is tied to the fact that bonus VPs are related directly to whether you take a given VP faster or slower than historical. However, the actual normal game balance does not normally correspond to historical progress. Axis usually advances faster than historical in the south. And in the north/center, Axis *can* be made to advance slower than historical, although much of that depends on the decisions of the Soviet player and how much they voluntarily retreat.

In previous games, for the most part Soviet players have made at least some attempt to defend the south, if for no other reason that it is sort of cheesy not to. However, good game balance should not rely on players having self restraint and playing in a certain way. Ideally good game balance should occur when players are attempting to play as well as they can, using the game mechanics to their advantage as best as they can to their advantage.

[Stamb]

Armament factories that does not affect anything, very poor supply in the south for the Axis, useless Axis allies.
Add to this only 2.5 - 3 mil max Soviet losses and a result is that in the winter they are 5mil. Or even more in some extreme cases like in the RedJohn Soviet AAR, he is actually 5.7mil

Absolutely insane numbers.

Personally I wanted to play my first pvp game as no early end as I want to go where I want and not follow real Axis path. But such approach is even more beneficial for a Soviets as they do not care at all about sudden death rules.
And if there are VP - well, they don't care either. With airsupport doing some real damage, Soviets might be even in a better shape as they can throw planes almost without a limit.

My opinion: if Soviets are not forced to defend upfront, like it was in real life, there will be no reasons to play as an Axis at all.

[Beethoven1]

ORIGINAL: Stamb

My opinion: if Soviets are not forced to defend upfront, like it was in real life, there will be no reasons to play as an Axis at all.

I agree with the sentiment, but I don't think it is as simple as just forcing Soviets to defend in the front. If the VPs were changed so that e.g. Kiev had 30 VP, I still would not defend it as Soviets, because it is totally indefensible. If you want Soviets to defend the south in the front, it has to be both more feasible to do so and also necessary in terms of things like VPs or industry or manpower or political support or what have you. As it is now, even if Soviets go all out trying to defend Kiev, it is not realistically going to hold longer than turn 7-8 or so against a Germany player that knows at all what they are doing.

So I do think Soviets should have more incentive to defend in the front (in the south particularly, I don't think it is a problem in the north-center particularly), but they also need to have more actual ability to do so to the degree that they did historically.

[Stamb]

Its a good question - how can they defend as long as historically? Without complete revisit of a combat system it is probably impossible. As clear hexes are very easy to push and you can not make whole south as light/heavy woods.

[Beethoven1]

ORIGINAL: Stamb

Its a good question - how can they defend as long as historically? Without complete revisit of a combat system it is probably impossible. As clear hexes are very easy to push and you can not make whole south as light/heavy woods.

Well, on that note, one thing that I have thought for a while might help is if it were made slightly easier to defend on clear terrain, and slightly harder to defend on heavy forest/swamp.

This would also, implicitly, be a slight buff to defending rivers (the main defensive obstacles in the south). Why? Because a river defense is pretty much busted as soon as you cross a river. And for basically any river, there is going to be at least one weak spot (almost always clear terrain), and that is where the attacker will cross. So if clear terrain were just slightly more defensible, that would make those weak spots in river defenses slightly less weak.

So this would, on the one hand, make it a bit easier to push in the north, so it would make it harder for Soviets to (ahistorically) totally shut down the German advance on Leningrad before Axis even gets close to Leningrad (and similarly harder to totally shut down Valdai/Velikie Luki/etc).

And on the other hand, it would incentivize defending in the south a bit more. I think that might help a little bit, although it is important to keep in mind that a large part of the reason why the south is extremely difficult to defend is 50 MP Panzer/motorized divisions, so I don't think it would risk overcorrecting and making it too hard on the Axis to get historical results.

Ideally, that might encourage Soviets to fight a bit more in the south, especially in the first few turns, but sooner or later Axis would get some good encirclements.

And in the later game, currently a lot of Soviet players don't bother attacking particularly in the north, and do all of their offensives in the south for a similar reason, and it would encourage/enable Axis to hold ground in the south a bit better also.

[AlbertN]

I underlined already that VPs are not the solution in another thread.
People play for 'fun-win' in general and VPs are ever relative to player-sentiment and commitment over time.
VPs bonuses should be rebatable anyhow only by the side that has the Initiative. (So Axis has only incentive to grab Voronhez early, if Soviets get it back during Winter, no +6 for them).

In general a player needs something that directly relates to their possibilities to win, that is not abstract. Factories / Economical factors are the ties in many situation. In a tangible way. Or other forms of bonuses (or penalties for the opponent).
Something like 'Ah Axis gained this resource hub, each point of resource gained allows a +X Gun / AFV of that type built per turn' type of bonus. This is an example obviously.
One of the main resources in general is not part of the game - which is food.
A more granular diffusion of resources can somehow help too where economics invest a deeper relevance.

Penalties can be that a too premature fall of Kiev for instance gives a X turn boost to Germany NM or a penalty to Soviet NM - something that affects combat for instance so that a collapse in the south demoralizes / bolster the other fronts too in case they're overloaded.

[Stamb]

Actually I was thinking about the same, but. Lets looks onto this:
Slightly easier to defend clear terrain. Ok, some changes are made and now defenders in hexes with clear terrain fight a little bit better. So instead of 5:1, 4:1 etc you will get 3:1 and so on. Maybe you will lose a bit less soldiers but it is irrelevant. As an Axis players you want pockets, not grind through Soviets forces, at least in the South.

And if we want to have a hold where previously there was a retreat (still talking about clear terrain) - it will lead to a situation that light forest and swamp/heavy woods will be not pushable at all.

[Stamb]

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

I underlined already that VPs are not the solution in another thread.
People play for 'fun-win' in general and VPs are ever relative to player-sentiment and commitment over time.
VPs bonuses should be rebatable anyhow only by the side that has the Initiative. (So Axis has only incentive to grab Voronhez early, if Soviets get it back during Winter, no +6 for them).

In general a player needs something that directly relates to their possibilities to win, that is not abstract. Factories / Economical factors are the ties in many situation. In a tangible way. Or other forms of bonuses (or penalties for the opponent).
Something like 'Ah Axis gained this resource hub, each point of resource gained allows a +X Gun / AFV of that type built per turn' type of bonus. This is an example obviously.
One of the main resources in general is not part of the game - which is food.
A more granular diffusion of resources can somehow help too where economics invest a deeper relevance.

Penalties can be that a too premature fall of Kiev for instance gives a X turn boost to Germany NM or a penalty to Soviet NM - something that affects combat for instance so that a collapse in the south demoralizes / bolster the other fronts too in case they're overloaded.

I was also proposing dynamic NM in other thread. Losing cities too quickly? Have a penalty and opposite side gets a boost. But how Soviets can actually defend this cities? I have no answer for the South
Economy is just non a factor in this game, unfortunately. Exceptions are only air planes/tank factories like in Kharkov. But they can be evacuated in any time, and if somebody told a truth - in 1 week. It was huge disappointment for me. Firstly with a fuel. Later on with armament points.

[carlkay58]

Beethoven1:

A few comments.

1. First I agree in general with you. I would also like to say that Matrix Games does not balance the Victory Conditions in their game releases until they have had a lot of data from games from the public.

2. You do a good job of explaining the lack of ability for the Axis to do well against Leningrad because a typical Soviet player will reinforce the north much heavier than historical. This explanation can also be used to explain the Axis advance into the center as MOST Axis players send parts of 2nd PG south to help out 1st PG. As a matter of fact, when Tyronec did not do so recently he was met with disbelief over that failure. This is an example of players decisions resulting in major historical divergence.

3. I would like to point out that my latest AAR does have a PG (I chose the 3rd PG rather than 2nd PG due to positioning at the time) being sent south to help out against the Soviet AI just to shorten the lines the Axis has to spread out to cover. Which was behind the historical Hitler decision also. Against a Soviet player, however, the Soviet defensive line would have retreated well before this could have happened so most Axis players do not have to make that decision.

4. The fall of Vyazma is usually because the Soviets are pulling back faster than the Axis can pocket them. Smolensk may hold a bit longer than historical because historically the Soviets were stretched too thin in the area early on and were pocketed around Smolensk, but later Soviet reactions actually over reinforced the area and were conducting major counter offensives to drive the Axis back.

So let's look at various things players tend to do that make the game divert from history rather quickly.

Axis players send help from AGC to AGS particularly panzer units. This is replaced in the center by either driving the infantry faster forward or diverting 4th PG units to help in the center.

Soviet players run away from the Axis particularly in the south and reinforce more against AGN and AGC than historically was done.

Air units are not being used as much as they should be in HvH games. Part of this is admittingly because of problems that have cropped up in the Air Game due to some 'quick fixes' that have broken other things and made matters worse. This should hopefully be cleaned up in the future but this is the state of the game currently.

Odessa falls quickly because the Soviets MUST counter the Axis naval interdiction. Even if the Axis player is able to intercept and cause the VVS casualties in the counter interdiction, the Soviets have the forces early in the war to counter despite the losses. Without this counter, the Axis Naval Interdiction will starve Odessa out quickly. And it will starve out quickly. See any of my AARs as I can do that against either the AI or Soviet players that do not contest it. This is the game system showing what could easily have happened historically given the same responses.

So player decisions matter - on both sides.