Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I find it humorous that so many pro-German posters claim that they are being "shouted down" by having to deal with inconvenient facts and credible historical sources.

As to why to play the game, you can ask all of the people who play the Japanese side in WitP. Or you can find a game that allows Germany to take Vladivostok, India, and then set up Nazi bases on the moon if that would be more to your liking.

I find it humorous that so many pro-German posters claim that they are being "shouted down" by having to deal with inconvenient facts and credible historical sources.

Heh - okay. Good rejoinder although not a good example of a someone not being shouted down, in my opinion.

If you want historical facts, by all means tell me how the retrograde operations in 1941 could have been attempted by the historical Red Army when in fact wireless communications was not exactly a common item for most units below division. Do they use semaphores and signal flags?

I mean c'mon...

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


The Russians did have a functioning capital. Kuybyshev (Samara since 1991.). In October 1941, the Communist Party and governmental organizations, diplomatic missions of foreign countries, leading cultural establishments and their staff were evacuated to the city. It would of been the capital if Moscow fell. It remained the alternate capital until summer 1943.

From Wikipedia:
"In 13 October, Stalin ordered the evacuation of the Communist Party, the General Staff and various civil government offices from Moscow to Kuibyshev (now Samara), leaving only a limited number of officials behind. The evacuation caused panic among Muscovites. On 16–17 October, much of the civilian population tried to flee, mobbing the available trains and jamming the roads from the city. Despite all this, Stalin publicly remained in the Soviet capital, somewhat calming the fear and pandemonium."

You are stating that this is simulated within the game?

ORIGINAL: pwieland
You do understand that your logic is suspect just based on the premise and conclusion, right? That is, the Germans lost the war, but given that they diverted resources to other fronts that should prove that they were correct on not focusing on Moscow.

No, I don't understand. You said that it was "ludicrous" that the Sovs could continue to resist if they lost Moscow. I am saying that the Germans, who probably gave a little more thought to this issue than you have, and who were playing for much higher stakes, obviously came to a different conclusion.

ORIGINAL: pwieland

If you want historical facts, by all means tell me how the retrograde operations in 1941 could have been attempted by the historical Red Army when in fact wireless communications was not exactly a common item for most units below division. Do they use semaphores and signal flags?

Uh, actually, I've said previously and fairly frequently that the Sov's ability to conduct this kind of coordinated withdrawal is "wildly unrealistic" and have suggested some ways to fix it. I'm too lazy to post a link the to post, but trust me on this one.

ORIGINAL: pwieland

There are many aspects of the design that are historically nonsensical, but are still active. Removing units wholesale from the Axis OOB because of historical battles, that may never occur? (I am thinking the Stalingrad OOB removal as a prime example here...) How about the artificial lowering of German morale? How about the artificial raising of Soviet morale? I could go further but I am certain you got the gist...

I'm certainly not going to defend all of the dev's design decisions, I also disagree with many of them. But while changing these issues would make the game more fun for the Germans, I don't think it would make a significant difference in who would "win" the war in-game.

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Uh, actually, I've said previously and fairly frequently that the Sov's ability to conduct this kind of coordinated withdrawal is "wildly unrealistic" and have suggested some ways to fix it. I'm too lazy to post a link the to post, but trust me on this one.

I am sure you have. The point being is that you accused those who disagree and feel as if they are shouted down within the forum are presented with historical fact and pristine logic. I have presented two instances within the same thread where that is not the case. Therefore, the premise is demonstrably false.

ORIGINAL: pwieland
The point being is that you accused those who disagree and feel as if they are shouted down within the forum are presented with historical fact and pristine logic. I have presented two instances within the same thread where that is not the case. Therefore, the premise is demonstrably false.

Sorry, you've rather lost me here--I'm not sure that I understand what instances and what premise are you referring to, because I have never said that all responses on this forum are based on compelling logic or historical fact, so you cannot refute my statement with your examples. Moreover, the retreat example is particularly bad because I don't recall anyone EVER arguing that the type of control the Sovs have at this stage is "realistic" and that they could have conducted this kind of choreographed retreat. What people do argue about is the fact that many German players don't think the Sovs should be able to retreat AT ALL because Stalin wouldn't let them, while at the same time being able to avoid the Germans' various blunders. Thus, the question is whether the game should deal with HOW the Sovs can retreat or IF the Sovs can retreat--currently it does neither.

ORIGINAL: pwieland

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


The Russians did have a functioning capital. Kuybyshev (Samara since 1991.). In October 1941, the Communist Party and governmental organizations, diplomatic missions of foreign countries, leading cultural establishments and their staff were evacuated to the city. It would of been the capital if Moscow fell. It remained the alternate capital until summer 1943.

From Wikipedia:
"In 13 October, Stalin ordered the evacuation of the Communist Party, the General Staff and various civil government offices from Moscow to Kuibyshev (now Samara), leaving only a limited number of officials behind. The evacuation caused panic among Muscovites. On 16–17 October, much of the civilian population tried to flee, mobbing the available trains and jamming the roads from the city. Despite all this, Stalin publicly remained in the Soviet capital, somewhat calming the fear and pandemonium."

You are stating that this is simulated within the game?

Nope. Just refuting this: ORIGINAL: pwieland

If the Germans capture Leningrad and Moscow, would that be a win? Not in this game, since the ability of Soviet formations to operate, bereft of a functioning capital.

Losing Moscow would *not* have left Russia without a functioning capital as you claim.

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: pwieland

There are many aspects of the design that are historically nonsensical, but are still active. Removing units wholesale from the Axis OOB because of historical battles, that may never occur? (I am thinking the Stalingrad OOB removal as a prime example here...) How about the artificial lowering of German morale? How about the artificial raising of Soviet morale? I could go further but I am certain you got the gist...

I'm certainly not going to defend all of the dev's design decisions, I also disagree with many of them. But while changing these issues would make the game more fun for the Germans, I don't think it would make a significant difference in who would "win" the war in-game.

I see he is falling for helio's Stalingrad myth. I see he fails to understand, either on purpose or because of lack of research, that those units lost at Stalingrad were *rebuilt*. And that they were sent *west*. Thus, said units are withdrawn. Not because they were lost. But because they went west.

He really should read what Joel posts.

ORIGINAL: pwieland

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Uh, actually, I've said previously and fairly frequently that the Sov's ability to conduct this kind of coordinated withdrawal is "wildly unrealistic" and have suggested some ways to fix it. I'm too lazy to post a link the to post, but trust me on this one.

I am sure you have. The point being is that you accused those who disagree and feel as if they are shouted down within the forum are presented with historical fact and pristine logic. I have presented two instances within the same thread where that is not the case. Therefore, the premise is demonstrably false.

You failed with the Stalingrad nonsense. The units are not withdrawn because they were lost. They are withdrawn because the rebuilt units were.............wait for it.........................................sent elsewhere.

Read Joel's post here: tm.asp?m=3097828&mpage=5&key=?

tm.asp?m=3104200 for Trey's

I can kind of sympathize with the guys complaining about the Stalingrad units--while they were withdrawn because they were sent west, they were sent west at least partly because they were rebuilt after being destroyed. I guess Joel's point is that if these divisions had not been sent west, other equivalent units would have been, so it is a wash.

Personally I don't think it is completely clear how these units should be treated but personally (as a Sov player...) am willing to give the devs the benefit of the doubt.

They didn't go west because they were rebuilt. They were rebuilt *in* the west.

At least one, the 384th Inf, went back east after being reconstituted and trained in France.

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

They didn't go west because they were rebuilt. They were rebuilt *in* the west.

But they were rebuilt in the west because they were destroyed, so if they weren't destroyed?

I think the other thread has more info on the topic, so I guess the topic is better discussed there.

If they weren't destroyed, then some unit would have to be withdrawn to fill the need in the west.

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

They didn't go west because they were rebuilt. They were rebuilt *in* the west.

But they were rebuilt in the west because they were destroyed, so if they weren't destroyed?

I think the other thread has more info on the topic, so I guess the topic is better discussed there.

I meant to include this:

To borrow Trey's list.

71st Infantry Division -Reconstituted in Denmark Mar 43
94th Infantry Division - Reconstituted in Brittany Mar 43
295th Infantry Division - Reconstituted in Saxony Mar 43
297th Infantry Division - Reconstitued near Blaye-et-St. Luce France Mar-Jun 43
305th Infantry Division - Reconstituted near Le Mans France Mar 43

3rd Motorized Division - Reconstituted in France 43
29th Motorized Division - Reconstituted in France Mar 1943
60th Motorized Division - Reconstituted in France Feb 43

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

If they weren't destroyed, then some unit would have to be withdrawn to fill the need in the west.

Understood, that's why I ultimately accept the mechanism.

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

If they weren't destroyed, then some unit would have to be withdrawn to fill the need in the west.

Understood, that's why I ultimately accept the mechanism.

When War in Europe arrives, it will be the Western Allies who get that problem

Or should IMHO anyway.

I think that for many, including myself..the 2 worst parts of this (unit withdraw) are:
1: That they pull from the front to fill up, then leave..though I actually can see the logic in the reason above(doesn't mean that I like it or even agree, but I can see the logic).
2: That it comes regardless of current game conditions..and while I understand the logic here, as well.. I disagree with it still. If you are leading your pixeltruppen to glorious victory after glorious victory, the Red Army is running away, and all is beautiful in your little Axis world...it still seems arbitrary to see that somehow in the West, it is not going so well, and you need to pull units from the East to fix.. In the real world, the Wehrmacht as I posted in another thread some weeks ago...devoted 60+% of their entire war effort to the East Front, where they saw their "real enemies" If the Soviets were indeed crumbling, it is quite likely that the Western allies would never have even attempted their landings, or, if they did so, the timing for them would have been much delayed as the British, in particular, had a very specific set of prerequisites which they needed to achieve before they attempted, at least, the "big one" in Normandy.
Having said that, I also think that with only one front in the game, I can understand 2x3's reason for this design choice..it definitely makes me more anxious to try an eventual "War in Europe" where we can make the decisions for both fronts however.[;)] Then again, perhaps that is their secret plan after all...lol

Ahh, but if you're winning glorious victory after glorious victory, surely you can spare the troops for the front that is suffering inglorious defeat after inglorious defeat

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Ahh, but if you're winning glorious victory after glorious victory, surely you can spare the troops for the front that is suffering inglorious defeat after inglorious defeat

Lol..touche'