It might just be me but I sense some kind of acrimony in the way some messages in this thread were formulated.
Anyhow, in a nutshell, some people say that WiR is unplayable because of the Soviet Armies' omnipotence and/or Wermacht impotence during blizzard conditions while some others say there are ways to take counter measures that may alterate these incongruities in a favorable way.
For the rest, arguing that setting fall back positions in advance is totally ahistorical or that the German defensive positions in spring '42 was a continious front line, a collection of strong points.... or (why not) a "string of pearls" (D. Fugate) is secondary from my point of view.
I rediscovered WiR a short while ago and to my surprise, it is still an enjoyable game despite its outdated graghics and functionnalities. After all the new information that has become available since it has been developped (1993), we will all agree on the fact that many of the concepts that inspired Mr Grigsby and his team are now outdated or would need further refinement.
For readings I suggest War in Russia rule book [;)]
Use version 3.2
It avoids the low readiness blizzard shattering bug and the unrealistic produce whatever types of tanks you like (all tiger tank germans) and is in my mind much better and more realistic.
Straw men have their uses. Straw men and wooden cannon kept McClellan sitting on the peninsula for weeks.
We can throw quotes at each other, but words are just words and it is historical actions that count more. Some books, records and diaries are true, some are honest but wrong, some are deliberately intended to confuse and cover errors. I am sure that we all have the same books on our shelves and will all have opinions to share. Opinions are open to discussion and challenge, which is what the forum is for, but they should not be subject to ridicule, therein lies the death of debate.
Please supply a list of good generals who are not psychic, the ability to predict and prepare for the unexpected is essential to success (and very cold weather in the Russian winter is not unexpected). If you wait for something to happen before acting it will be too late.
The point about entrenchment was in reference to the comment by pyguinard that small units were able to provide entenchments that could later be filled by much larger transfers. The reply was intended as a general comment. In the context of the whole war, millions of civilians of both sides, construction units both military and civil and POWs (Hiwis), worked on fortifications. In general I am happy with the way WIR handles entrenchment.
On the shattering of German units, I feel that, historically, units stayed in the German OOB long after they had ceased to be of much operational use. In all allied armies units were disbanded, or broke up, at a much earlier stage. I don't know how you reflect this without losing the balance of the whole campaign, In 1944/45 the historical shattering of German units is more common and the game has to cover a whole war from the Pz II to the Su 152, from Moscow to Berlin. I can live with the current settings and there are now so many new versions, from WIR 1.1 onward, that there must be a balance to suit all of us.
I still stand by my belief that up until the rain period and finally with the onset of blizzard conditions, the Germans were able to move where they were directed, subject to supply limitations. That doesn't mean there were not checks or panics and the transport situation was critical. At Smolensk I feel that Guderian was acting as he did in France 1940, pushing ahead and hoping the get so entangled, that he would have to be given approval to continue the advance. It was not that the pocket at Smolensk could not be closed, more that Guderian was intent on the next advance East and the effort expended in taking and holding the bridgehad at Elnya could have been used to close the pocket earlier. You can make an argument that Guderian lost the war for Germany (it's only an opinion).[;)]
Whatever was said, the fact is that 2nd PZ Grp had the logistics and offensive power to move 150/200 miles to Romny and complete the encirclement of Southwest Front (then reposition North again for the start of 'Typhoon'). This was not a punch into empty air, as Briansk Front had been formed to attack the right flank of Armee Gp Centre and Eremenko had been ordered to stop, encircle and destroy 2 PZ Gp. Hoth's Panzer Group was drawn off and had the power to help Armee Gp North. Based on this, my opinion is that the principal striking forces of the German army still had the offensive and logistical power to move where ever directed, it could have been towards Moscow, as Guderian wanted. Whether, or not, this would have been a good strategy in the circumstances is another debate. My view is that the Barbarossa variant used was flawed and the original Marks 'Plan Otto' may have worked better.
I think that WIR represents the initial phase well, the German player is racing time and supply limitations and trying to keep moving, whilst killing as many Russians as posible. When the blizzard hits the roles are reversed. The Russians are not Godlike in the Snow, you can die of frostbite going forwards, just as easily as you can going backwards, but for the first time they can make meaningful advances. It is now the German player who is desparately holding out and, as well desrcibed by others, the deployment and tactics are critical. So to get to the point, I think WIR does a good job. It may not be 100% accurate, but it has the 'feel' of history that you don't find in many games.[:)]
"In politics stupidity is not a handicap" - Napoleon
“A people which is able to say everything becomes able to do everything” - Napoleon
“Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress" - Napoleon
ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa
The point about entrenchment was in reference to the comment by pyguinard that small units were able to provide entenchments that could later be filled by much larger transfers. The reply was intended as a general comment. In the context of the whole war, millions of civilians of both sides, construction units both military and civil and POWs (Hiwis), worked on fortifications. In general I am happy with the way WIR handles entrenchment.
That's true. Not only did it happen in the USSR but even earlier - in September 1939 German armored cars were stopped in suburbs of Warsaw by civilians (sic!). A few hours later the area was seized by soldiers and hold for more than 3 weeks till Poland surrendered.
Tens of thousands civilians were to build antitank ditches in 1941 campaign. One has to remember the USSR was a communist country with martial law - if a commisar ordered civilians to do something they had to obey unless they wanted to be slaughtered.
So it's historically ok to place small units behind front line in order to entrench and later reinforce them with retreating forces. That's my favourite tactics as Soviets - when your defense line is broken you simply withdraw to next one, already prepared. After one turn your forces are rested and ready to defend new, well fortified positions. Thus attition of German units is severly increased.
Question is wheter the Germans could entrench in the same way while the were in Russia. I think definitely not on the same scale.
ORIGINAL: pyguinard
After all the new information that has become available since it has been developped (1993), we will all agree on the fact that many of the concepts that inspired Mr Grigsby and his team are now outdated or would need further refinement.
For readings I suggest War in Russia rule book [;)]
Our understanding of the Russo-German War has changed and it continues to do so. For that we have a relatively small group of historians to thank (Glantz, Zetterling, Dunn etc.). Unfortunately, I think the original developers of the game missed a lot of the key works that were available all the way back in 93 when the number of historians not enamoured with D-Day was even smaller. Erickson, for example, was and continues to be an excellent source.
Still, for the most part, the game is quite well put together. I was thrilled with it right up until the first blizzard hit. I continue to be thrilled with some of its scenarios.
ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa
We can throw quotes at each other, but words are just words and it is historical actions that count more. Some books, records and diaries are true, some are honest but wrong, some are deliberately intended to confuse and cover errors. I am sure that we all have the same books on our shelves and will all have opinions to share. Opinions are open to discussion and challenge, which is what the forum is for, but they should not be subject to ridicule, therein lies the death of debate.
OK. It's my opinion that Germany won the war. Now, prove me wrong. And remember, by your own rules, all sources are open to debate no matter how credible you think they are.
ORIGINAL: cabron66
Just out of curiousity, Morphy, what is your complaint against Ernesto Guevara?[:)]
I hate communism. I happened to live in a communist country and I learnt what communism brings is poverty, humiliation, starvation and manslaughter. Always. It happens everywhere - wheter it is America (Cuba), Europe (the USSR), Africa (Ethiopia) or Asia (North Korea). Innocent people are always murdered by thousands, sometimes millions or even tens of millions.
Communism is the worst and the most unjust political system humanity has ever invented. It's like a curse.
Since Guevara wanted to export poverty, humiliation, starvation and manslaughter to other countries he is the same criminal as Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot or Castro. Fortunately for Bolivians he was killed before he became another cruel tyrant and serial murderer and that's why leftists praise him so much. He simply didn't have any serious opportunity to disgrace himself as much as other leftists did.
OK. It's my opinion that Germany won the war. Now, prove me wrong. And remember, by your own rules, all sources are open to debate no matter how credible you think they are.
OK. It's my opinion that Germany won the war. Now, prove me wrong. And remember, by your own rules, all sources are open to debate no matter how credible you think they are.
Cheers
Paul
Good point, who got their industry re-built with modern equipment, defence guaranteed for decades at minimal cost, given political systems to become one of the richest States in the world (Japan also). Meanwhile the UK has just completed the last instalment to finish paying its war debt to the US (60 years on). Who won, who lost ?
I don't want to prove you wrong, if you feel the game balance kills the game, that is your right and only you can decide what suits you. I do know from following this forum that great efforts have been made to adjust the balance from the original game (particularly blizzard effects), v3.3 is the end of a long trail. I am just trying to explain (maybe badly) that I find the balance acceptable and matching most historical factors, within the limits of an old code doing a big job. [:)]
"In politics stupidity is not a handicap" - Napoleon
“A people which is able to say everything becomes able to do everything” - Napoleon
“Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress" - Napoleon
OK. It's my opinion that Germany won the war. Now, prove me wrong. And remember, by your own rules, all sources are open to debate no matter how credible you think they are.
Cheers
Paul
Good point, who got their industry re-built with modern equipment, defence guaranteed for decades at minimal cost, given political systems to become one of the richest States in the world (Japan also). Meanwhile the UK has just completed the last instalment to finish paying its war debt to the US (60 years on). Who won, who lost ?
I don't want to prove you wrong, if you feel the game balance kills the game, that is your right and only you can decide what suits you. I do know from following this forum that great efforts have been made to adjust the balance from the original game (particularly blizzard effects), v3.3 is the end of a long trail. I am just trying to explain (maybe badly) that I find the balance acceptable and matching most historical factors, within the limits of an old code doing a big job. [:)]
Not really. They LOST the war but WON peace. And that makes a world of difference...
I am just trying to explain (maybe badly) that I find the balance acceptable and matching most historical factors, within the limits of an old code doing a big job. [:)]
No, not badly. I think we can agree on what you have written above. I am glad some of you have found ways to live with the game. It would be too bad to lose all of it for one, albeit serious, problem.
It is probably gamey, but I stop my army corps in the first big mud period, and move them only if it is really necessary. In htis way you will have almost every unit entrenched to 5-8 which is usually enough to hold for one turn of attack and only after then do they retreat (although with big losses), which I think is historical. If you use special supply regularly it is not that bad, but you have to pay attention to the OOB and distances.
Morphy
Polak wengri dva bratanki ida pitki ida szanki. (probably the spelling is not good ).
"Standing Fast: German Defensive Doctrine on the Russian Front During World War II" by Major Timothy A. Wray, Combat Studies Institute, Research Survey No. 5, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 1986.
It is well worth an amateur's time to read the opinion of a professional who studied the topic.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.-Edmund Burke
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; if it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.-Judge Learned Hand
"Standing Fast: German Defensive Doctrine on the Russian Front During World War II" by Major Timothy A. Wray, Combat Studies Institute, Research Survey No. 5, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 1986.
It is well worth an amateur's time to read the opinion of a professional who studied the topic.
About Eastern Front Warfare I personnally wouldn't pay for anything written prior to 1991 . The reason is simple: the Russian Military Archives have only been declassified after that period thus, the Major Wray might have missed many facts that became known to researchers only after. If you found the book in a flee market, it could still be an enjoyable reading! [;)]
If you are looking for valuable sources of information, I have seen many good reviews about David M. Glantz's studies. On the internet, I found the following readings to be worth of interest:
About Eastern Front Warfare I personnally wouldn't pay for anything written prior to 1991 . The reason is simple: the Russian Military Archives have only been declassified after that period thus, the Major Wray might have missed many facts that became known to researchers only after. If you found the book in a flee market, it could still be an enjoyable reading! [;)]
I do not disagree with the general point, but I would not dismiss all material before a certain date. There seems to have been a literary loss of memory, many authors are writing books 'revealing new information', uncovering conspiricies, etc.. I have read 'new' information recently, which I had in books printed in the 1960s. I have a reprint collection of a magazine, which was published in the UK during the war years and then available to anyone from street bookstalls. When reading this, I was surprised how much information was generally available. There is a regular article where a retired military expert gave information on the various military fronts, including Russia. The analysis of operations and future actions is very accurate in a lot of cases. There is, naturally, a lot of propaganda, but also a great deal of hard facts and correct forecasts of what will happen next. I wonder how much is really new, or merely rediscovering what has been forgotten.[:)]
"In politics stupidity is not a handicap" - Napoleon
“A people which is able to say everything becomes able to do everything” - Napoleon
“Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress" - Napoleon
About Eastern Front Warfare I personnally wouldn't pay for anything written prior to 1991 .
(...)
I do not disagree with the general point, but I would not dismiss all material before a certain date.
(...)
Yes, you are right although I wrote my comment thinking that Solops was asking a question. I realized only afterwards that he was in fact, recomanding it .... sorry for my poor understanding of the language of Shakespear!! [:(]
Anyhow, I was able to find Wray's study on the internet (Here's the link) ...and guess what I will be reading this weekend! [8D]
basically until the collapse of the USSR we only got 1 side of the story - the german side. it was never a wrong perspective, just 1 sided. since the germans could only guess as to what the soviets were thinking from what they experienced, and since the USSR was the new enemy of the western world after WW II, the US tried to extract as much info from the germans as possible about their new enemy since the germans fought them first hand and likely encouraged educated guesses which became "fact".
after the fall of the soviet union we finally got the other side of the story, but you could not trust anything written before stalin's death in 1953 since it was most definatly written to please stalin to avoid a quick trip to siberia!
).
