Poor Russians. Balance in 3.101

Lorenzo from Spain · Post by **Lorenzo from Spain** » Sun Nov 04, 2001 1:47 pm

Originally posted by Muzrub:
I think it depends on the player on whether this is a balanced game or not. I myself dont push my Panzers too much and as the Russians I have stopped a German advance at Vyazma, and still hold Leningrad, also Rostov is also safe behind a secure front line. I even acording to the game recieved a Guards division (upgrade) at the battle around Kiev. My Soviet losses by the time of the Wet/Winter season stand around 39,000 and 5,600 tanks.
Like I said I dont storm ahead with Panzers, I mainly attack when in good supply and readiness.

Peace, please. This is a WAR-game.

Wére talking about strategies in war, and the strategies aim victory, as fast as possible. The victory is the best argument to any strategy: you can argue during hours about a strategy, but the defeat is a contra-argument decisive.
The question is: Is realistic or no? Can the panzers run to Moscow (and even Gorki) without stop to rest, repair and resupply? In the previous version, panzers must stop during 2-3 decisive weeks before reach Moscow. I think this is historic. But now they can run deeper and deeper without need of stop. I think this is not historic and the German will won always. Play now with the Germans in 41 is so easy that is not funny.
Of course, all of us play for fun. But the game must be realistic and (more or less) balanced. Both players must have an opportunity of victory.

And talking about strategies: I think the German must aim the industrial and politic centers of Russia (Moscow, Karkov and Leningrad), trying to take them before winter. This is his only opportunity to win (and historic, too). And the Russian must retreat quickly to save his frontier army (not historic, but...) and try to resist until winter. Russia will win in a long-term war, if can maintain Moscow and Leningrad.
So a “prudent” German strategy in 41 is suicidal. I played as Russian against another player who played “prudently”. He advanced slowly, entrenched their forces in Vyazhma during autumn... and in the year 43 surrended: we was fighting in the German border.
Of course, if wére playing against AI, any strategy works. But AI is good for learn the mechanics of game, not for play.

If you disagree, we can check this playing PEBM. Even with this unbalanced version, I think the Russian has 90% of probability to won if the German dońt conquest Moscow nor Leningrad. (the unbalance is, precisely, that is too easy to conquer both cities). And I think, too, that in this version a German deep advance is unstoppable.

Even we can publish the march of war in forum: “Conservative or Aggressive German strategy”. May be I´m wrong. May be not.

And I really was wrong trying to do a reply two times without writing. Could anyone delete the two empty replies? Thanks.

Muzrub · Post by **Muzrub** » Sun Nov 04, 2001 2:35 pm

Oh Really also you are a loser as Loki. Im not a child. I dont need a victory to be a man. Really I dont need nothing you can get. You can live your own world of imagination (of course with your friends) but I believe that only losers speak about that. Try to improve yourself better than criticize

Where did all this come from? Why all the anger?

Did you believe it was a personal attack on you?
If so why?

Jason you can play the game anyway you want. You can ignore the history if it pleases you. Really I dont care what you do, I'll never you play you anyway after this stupid outburst of yours!

If you wish to ignore the history its your loss, not mine nor anyone elses.

And if you dont like that..........F*ck You!

Josans · Post by **Josans** » Sun Nov 04, 2001 2:44 pm

Originally posted by Muzrub:

And if you dont like that..........F*ck You!

I didnt have insult anybody here

Josans · Post by **Josans** » Sun Nov 04, 2001 3:36 pm

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

Josan, why in the hell is it that whenever someone talks about the motivations of players of this game, that you feel you've been personally attacked? To my knowledge none of us here up to this point were even talking about you, nor were we talking about "exploits" or bugs in the game nor did anyone mention the "Pz Korps in the backfield" issue. We were simply talking about the mindset of the players.

The history underpinning this simulation is a vast human tragedy of immense porportions. The scope of the human suffering was staggering. The human wave attacks by the Red Army early on because human bodies were the only thing the had to throw at the enemy, the horrific fighting where later on Russians would fight to the death rather than surrender to SS units knowing that surrender was the equivalent of death anyway, the Germans would just run their tanks over the Russian trenches to crush or suffocate them in these cases, the Jews massacred by the Gestapo and SS, the purges of the paraniod Stalin against his army, the deaths of millions who were sent east to gulags because Stalin believed that they were "tainted" by living under German rule, the resistance groups on BOTH sides, pro and anti Communists who spent more time killing Russian civilians than Germans or even each other, the brutality of German occupation driven by Hitler's racist belief about Slavs being of an inferior race. There are many more points like these, and many in this forum can add to this list (and please do).

To you and others this is just old history and thats fine, but for the rest of us, this knowledge and the awareness of what was actually happening when we push counters across hexes on a map is an important part of this game, it gives us a backdrop to the war that no simple book can. Contrary to popular myth, I believe wargamers are the ones who understand the horrors of war more than *anyone* else, because for us, playing the game is also reliving history. Well, obviously not all wargamers..... This does NOT mean we want the game to play like the war did historically every time, only that the game be as accurate as it can to support the belief that things could have turned out the way they historically, as they do in the game.

You obviously are not concerned with the history, just using every advantage the game provides to win and thats fine. Your entitled to your opinion Josan, but that is all it is, an OPINION. This sure as *HELL* doesn't mean we must "improve" ourselves "rather than criticize". It is you who is handing out criticism to others based on nothing more than *your* idea of how the game should be played and how players should approach the game. Your assumption that you are right and we are wrong in thinking about the ways this game should be played is precisely the attitude that has gotten you into so much trouble in the past, and here has done so again. And if you keep calling other players "losers" because they don't agree with you, I'm really going to lose my temper.....

Ed "Just Another Loser" Cogburn

Ed,

Dont lose your temper I dont call to anyplayer loser because dont agree with me. Loki joked about chairman skill saying if he was playing against a child... in the game I played with him he fastly posted a topic in the forum about tired grognards... He said Im unrealistic because I use the air supply in attack until Svar corrected him...but first he attacks...

I always I have asked to this forum how to play the game and if I can do this or that, you know well.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Sun Nov 04, 2001 3:46 pm

Originally posted by Lorenzo from Spain:

And I really was wrong trying to do a reply two times without writing. Could anyone delete the two empty replies? Thanks.

We can't, but you can. Select the message and click on the icon to edit it. Now on the edit screen look in the top left corner. You should see a checkbox that says "Delete Post?" Click that checkbox to activate it, then click on "Edit Post" at the bottom as you normally would if you were just modifying one of your own posts. That should delete it. I haven't tried, but I'll guess that only you or an adminstrator can delete a post of yours.

Muzrub · Post by **Muzrub** » Sun Nov 04, 2001 4:01 pm

I didnt have insult anybody here

The F*uckyou only applies if you dont like it.

So if you dont like it the insult is paid in full!

I take being called a loser as an insult Jason or is that a term of indearment in your country?

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Sun Nov 04, 2001 4:04 pm

Originally posted by Josan:

Ed,

Dont lose your temper I dont call to anyplayer loser because dont agree with me. Loki joked about chairman skill saying if he was playing against a child... in the game I played with him he fastly posted a topic in the forum about tired grognards... He said Im unrealistic because I use the air supply in attack until Svar corrected him...but first he attacks...

From Josan earlier:

Really its amazing. None likes to win. Change the history is guilty? Loki speak too much but really he is bad player. Loki, talk about our game and the things I didnt make as german. Muzrub are you also a loser? Because both are brothers in arms...
Varjager, really thinks Loki is a good player? Ed, ..., I know your attitude.

I play for fun and if not my guilty wins every game I play. Ok some day I will lose but I wont cry as others.If I can get Moscow why not take it?

Really its amazing...

You knew you were going to say something controversial, otherwise what is the meaning of "Ed, I know your attitude"? You threw "loser" all over the place but you didn't put in a single smiley anywhere in those posts to indicate something not literal. How is "Ok some day I will lose but I wont cry as others." not an insult? Its also arrogant. Even if I accepted your explanation, that still doesn't explain why you attacked Muzrub, instead of just Loki. And I don't accept your explanation. After attacking at least 3 people, you are now claiming it wasn't an attack when it clearly was. I suppose now you're going to claim its all a misunderstanding because English isn't your native tongue?

[ November 04, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]</p>

Josans · Post by **Josans** » Sun Nov 04, 2001 4:59 pm

Originally posted by Muzrub:
I didnt have insult anybody here

The F*uckyou only applies if you dont like it.

So if you dont like it the insult is paid in full!

I take being called a loser as an insult Jason or is that a term of indearment in your country?

Its not the same in my country say fuck you that loser. Im speaking in WiR terms, You answer with a personal attack. But if you think is a insult sorry for that.

Josans · Post by **Josans** » Sun Nov 04, 2001 5:05 pm

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

I suppose now you're going to claim its all a misunderstanding because English isn't your native tongue?

[ November 04, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

No.

Muzrub · Post by **Muzrub** » Sun Nov 04, 2001 5:43 pm

Its not the same in my country say fuck you that loser. Im speaking in WiR terms, You answer with a personal attack. But if you think is a insult sorry for that.

Your opening sentence does not make much sense mate. Speaking in WIR terms! That still does not explain the use of loser. And the use of loser is a personal attack and I replied likewise.

You do yourself no credit trying to weasel out of it. Either stick to your guns or dont bother attacking anyone at all!

Kuniworth · Post by **Kuniworth** » Sun Nov 04, 2001 7:38 pm

Hm this question of game-balanced seems to never quit. I would like us to be very clear on one point; wir should be as realistic as possible. If you try changing the game-balance from the wrong starting point you soon end up with a game that frustrates all. For example the famous smolensk-issue(Germany couldnt capture Smolensk 16/7-41 due to idiotic supply-rules).

I can not argue strongly enough about keeping game-realism. We must stribe to constantly make it more realistic which will give us a very good game-balance in the end.

As I said thousand times - sure mae the russians stronger(as they were) but don´t limit german panzer movement. And don´t alter any game-balane just for the heck of it.

loveman · Post by **loveman** » Sun Nov 04, 2001 8:55 pm

u can win as the russians i am being destroyed by a truelly excellent player he has nearly driven me back to 1941 start line and the mud of 1942 has not arrived yet <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sun Nov 04, 2001 10:12 pm

I'm playing my second game against Yogi. It is my second game against a human. In my first games I have made many experiences. But I have made another error in my first turn in my second game.
I'm currently trying a new strategy in delaying the germans. If it fails I have a third idea.
At the moment I'm searching about when and what factories were moved.
I think to make a statement about playballance, it is important that the best german strategy playes against the best russian strategy. I have not yet found the good strategy for the russians due to lack of playexperience. Maybe we create two new threads discussing strategy of germany and russia. Then testing these strategies and then we can make a statement.

Kuniworth · Post by **Kuniworth** » Sun Nov 04, 2001 11:44 pm

Harry! Youré competely right.

Yogi Yohan · Post by **Yogi Yohan** » Mon Nov 05, 2001 2:40 am

Everybody has the right to play and feel about the game the way they want. Here's what I think: As Muzrub said, the War in Russia was a struggle - two systems, two titanic powers, two great peoples straining with every fiber of their beings for VICTORY. To me, THAT is whats fascinating about the Eastern Front, the extremes - military, human, ethic, economic - to which these nations were driven by the imperative neccesity to prevail or perish.

To me, there is no feel of East Front if I hold back and allow the enemy to survive for the sake of the game. And if I have to do that when playing German if the Soviet player is going to have any sort of chance to win, then the game is NOT balanced in any way. The Germans were not holding back (except perhaps economicaly) and they still lost.

If in a game the Germans capture Moscow in August, then there's not necessarily something wrong, because the game is not a reproduction of historic events. I'm not in favor of rule changes that will enforce a historic development regardless of the players actions. The increased rail conversion early on is correct, since it makes it possible for the Germans to reach Moscow during the Summer/Autumn of 1941, but its up to the Russian side to delay that arrival - and there is the problem, that might not be possible. I think we should focus our attention on the ability of Soviet troops to resist German attacks during summer/autumn of 1941 - if there's something broken in the game, there's were it is.

HOUSE RULES are an excellent way to improve balance IF they are based in realities.
Some House rules I find very realistic is the "beyond the Urals" rule Harry came up with (designates a safe haven on the map for Soviet airgroups). Also, any realistic game should not allow the Finns to go beyond the limits they themselves set for their advance - which means they should not be allowed to attack Leningrad or cross the Svir. The Germans tried again and again to make the Finns do more, but they were adamant about this.

Lokioftheaesir · Post by **Lokioftheaesir** » Mon Nov 05, 2001 3:01 am

Originally posted by Lorenzo from Spain:

Peace, please. This is a WAR-game.

Wére talking about strategies in war, and the strategies aim victory, as fast as possible. The victory is the best argument to any strategy: you can argue during hours about a strategy, but the defeat is a contra-argument decisive.
The question is: Is realistic or no? Can the panzers run to Moscow (and even Gorki) without stop to rest, repair and resupply? In the previous version, panzers must stop during 2-3 decisive weeks before reach Moscow. I think this is historic. But now they can run deeper and deeper without need of stop. I think this is not historic and the German will won always. Play now with the Germans in 41 is so easy that is not funny.
Of course, all of us play for fun. But the game must be realistic and (more or less) balanced. Both players must have an opportunity of victory.

And talking about strategies: I think the German must aim the industrial and politic centers of Russia (Moscow, Karkov and Leningrad), trying to take them before winter. This is his only opportunity to win (and historic, too). And the Russian must retreat quickly to save his frontier army (not historic, but...) and try to resist until winter. Russia will win in a long-term war, if can maintain Moscow and Leningrad.
So a “prudent” German strategy in 41 is suicidal. I played as Russian against another player who played “prudently”. He advanced slowly, entrenched their forces in Vyazhma during autumn... and in the year 43 surrended: we was fighting in the German border.
Of course, if wére playing against AI, any strategy works. But AI is good for learn the mechanics of game, not for play.

If you disagree, we can check this playing PEBM. Even with this unbalanced version, I think the Russian has 90% of probability to won if the German dońt conquest Moscow nor Leningrad. (the unbalance is, precisely, that is too easy to conquer both cities). And I think, too, that in this version a German deep advance is unstoppable.

Even we can publish the march of war in forum: “Conservative or Aggressive German strategy”. May be I´m wrong. May be not.

And I really was wrong trying to do a reply two times without writing. Could anyone delete the two empty replies? Thanks.

Lorenzo

Agree. The initial points on strategy are quite true. In the Gotterdammerung wars (that only changed to 3.1 just before blizzard) I felt the best chance for victory was setting the germans up for a '42 attack with the absolute maximum in panzer strength. This strategy was formulated for victory but also it enables a tense sruggle where both sides get to attack. This is the fun factor of struggle as Muzrub pointed out. If you watch action movies how would you feel about a hero that always flattened his opponent in 1 or 2 blows, every time? The movie would be a big flop.

You say taking Moscow and Leningrad in '41 is only way for germans to win! I say it can be done in '42 with less risk to germans(but much more planning, this is 3.0 i'm talking here). Keep reading the Gotterdammerung post to find out.
You could say that that thread is the standard for a more consevative german plan.

So this may be the answer. Have 2 game folders ready. One 3.0 and one 3.101. Start the PBEM game in 3.0 and play 3 or 4 turns only(to limmit supply net growth and have stronger russians training)
Then start using the 3.101 folder after this.

Loki

[ November 04, 2001: Message edited by: Lokioftheaesir ]</p>

Lokioftheaesir · Post by **Lokioftheaesir** » Mon Nov 05, 2001 3:26 am

Originally posted by Josan:

Ed,

Dont lose your temper I dont call to anyplayer loser because dont agree with me. Loki joked about chairman skill saying if he was playing against a child... in the game I played with him he fastly posted a topic in the forum about tired grognards... He said Im unrealistic because I use the air supply in attack until Svar corrected him...but first he attacks...

I always I have asked to this forum how to play the game and if I can do this or that, you know well.

Josan

Yes i was wrong on the mater of the air supply and i admit/ted it. I did not joke on chairmans skill but on your advances.(no idea who you were playing) This was before i realised the major unballance against the soviets. Both times i spoke without checking and i splap my wrists for this.
"....but first he attacks."
(thats winning for you)

Loki

Lorenzo from Spain · Post by **Lorenzo from Spain** » Mon Nov 05, 2001 9:21 am

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir:

Lorenzo
You say taking Moscow and Leningrad in '41 is only way for germans to win! I say it can be done in '42 with less risk to germans(but much more planning, this is 3.0 i'm talking here). Keep reading the Gotterdammerung post to find out.
You could say that that thread is the standard for a more consevative german plan.

So this may be the answer. Have 2 game folders ready. One 3.0 and one 3.101. Start the PBEM game in 3.0 and play 3 or 4 turns only(to limmit supply net growth and have stronger russians training)
Then start using the 3.101 folder after this.

Loki

[ November 04, 2001: Message edited by: Lokioftheaesir ]

May be, I´m not sure. But if you dońt attack Moscow nor Leningrad seriously during 1941, the Russian will dońt fight. As Russian general, I´d never sacrifice my best units to defend... Mogilev, or Smolensk, or even Rostov. But I´ll send my reserves if Moscow or Leningrad are menaced.
If the soviet tanks units are at full strong and attack during blizzard, the future of German army is ominous.

If the rail conversion is historic, ok, but then the soviet experience must be higher, or climb more quickly, or something. If not, the Russian units simply shatter. The panzers only must push.
In 3.0, I defended Psokv during 2 - 4 weeks, and Mogilev - Smolensk during 2 weeks. Vyazhma usually resisted 1- 2 weeks. This is not too much, but this saved Moscow and Leningrad. But in this version, the Panzers overrun all at the moment. Involvements are not necessary: the Panzers can assault the cities, the rivers, the entrenchments without problem.
In a PEBM game against an expert, I was near Gorki! I tried to surround Moscow (like in 3.0), but I realized that this is not necessary: is easier simply assault it. Something is wrong. What?

The maps of 3.0 and 3.101 are not the same! So, I doubt if is posible play first with a version and after with another. May be a unit in a railroad will be in a marsh!

Lokioftheaesir · Post by **Lokioftheaesir** » Mon Nov 05, 2001 10:59 am

Originally posted by Lorenzo from Spain:

May be, I´m not sure. But if you dońt attack Moscow nor Leningrad seriously during 1941, the Russian will dońt fight. As Russian general, I´d never sacrifice my best units to defend... Mogilev, or Smolensk, or even Rostov. But I´ll send my reserves if Moscow or Leningrad are menaced.
If the soviet tanks units are at full strong and attack during blizzard, the future of German army is ominous................

Germans Try to take line Just west of Leningrad right down to Rostov. Smash as much soviet millitary as possible. Bad weather starts and All panzers move west to wait for '42. Germans defend with All infantry and No atillery or other batallions. (Keep west & Italy 1000CV above allies always) and give up ground slowly.(must keep readiness below 60 for all units, otherwise shatters) Will lose about 20,000 squads(maybe more) Most of which replaced by june42. Line may be pushed back 5 or 6 hexrows.
1942..sunny skies are here and germans move on moscow with 10-12 ~ 250 to 350 CV Pz corps, and luftwaffe with 8-10 FW190 groups on front line(training 80+) and even some he177's + 6 FW190 groups at training +90 waiting for allies in west.

So, we will see how well it works.

Loki

PMCN · Post by **PMCN** » Mon Nov 05, 2001 2:11 pm

The whole question of balance is hard to deal with. Historically the soviet union was in desprate straights by the end of 41. They had only a few thousand (at most) operational tanks, most of their troops were raw recruits, they had no airforce to speak of, too few officers to command what troops they did have. The only thing that saved them was the weather (both the mud and the blizzard).

The experience level of the soviet formations should be low for the most part but how low depends on what the numbers mean. If the siberian troops are only rated at 50 then the normal troops should be in the 30-35 range period. Those siberian troops were vetran troops. But some of the soviet divisions should be rated higher (most of the motorsised divisions, the tank divisons and probably the divisions on the finish border). The fact the germans captured over 1 million men in the first 10 weeks of the campaign says they were not facing trained, well led troops.

The question of balance could be delt with by making cities harder to take. This could be done by going back to the original rules on entrenchments where the defenders losses are evaluated by dividing them by the entrenchment level not the square root of it (or whatever is done now). The other thing is that starting in august the russians could gain a bonus for defending (I have no idea what this would do to the code) to represent the historical fact that the russian defence was becoming fanatical. Also there could be bonuses to the defence of any major russian city (Moscow, Lennigrad, Kiev, Stalingrad) to again represent the fact the troops doggedly defended these.

The germans were defeated by thousands of little wounds in reality not major battles. The game does not well represent the difficulties the germans had in fighting in the soviet union in terms of exhaustion of their troops, lack of replacements (the whole replacement system broke down), lack of good roads for supplies. The germans should have significantly more difficulty keeping their forces at high readiness levels and should have lowered replacement rates for troops not deployed either in germany of else in the army HQs. Normally the germans did not replace their troops in the field they rotated the whole division out to rebuild it. Virtually the only country that fed recruits in was the US. I think even the soviets rotated their units. And during mud and blizzard turns replacements should slow down unless a unit is on a rail line. How much in the case of mud is unclear to me, since I know that the germans historically used this as a time to try and build up their troops but given the weakness of the troops at the start of Operation Typhoon I think they could not have been so sucessful where as in the game you can make good use of the mud.

But the question of taking moscow was a strategic choice. The germans could have launched an assult on it in august instead Hitler sent the panzers south to Kiev to trap the soviet armies there. This was a blunder or at least that is the general concesus.

Moscow was defended in late 41 by a triple belt of anti-tank defences that the citizens had spent several weeks building. So there should be increased defensive entrenchment levels for all units near moscow.

I think balance can be achieved by playing with the supply rules for the germans on one hand and by looking at the experience level of some soviet troops on the other plus giving them what they had historically which is a increased defensive ability to counter the accurate offensive penelties the game gives them.