Winter Idea......Comment

[2ndACR]

They will have to play almost perfect to reach historical lines. The Russian will have to make some huge mistakes. And then the German army will vaporize come Jan 42.

Look at what it takes to take level 3-4 forts in Summer 41 and compare that with what it takes to do the same thing during the blizzard. Game over. There is no way the German army can ever go back on the true offensive in 1942 that I can see. He will face level 4 forts across the board, sometimes 4-5 deep. You get what you take and hold during the blizzard. After that the German will be on the pure defensive. As far as I can tell anyway.

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: pat.casey


If the axis player is more conservatively deployed than was historically the case...

...then the Soviets would be stronger than was historically the case. So why do you think that Axis strategy should be rewarded? When do you want to commence to dig? In September? Before taking Ukrainia, Moscow, Leningrad?

[2ndACR]

Does not matter when you start digging. You will hold maybe 2 turns, but most of the attacks will succeed and you will be toast. I have tried the Sept digging, have tried the push till snow hits, dig when mud starts. Does not matter in the least. Once the 2nd Blizzard turn hits, the entire German Army looks like the Romanian army and it just gets worse from there.

[NinetyNine]

Just to repeat what I've said a bunch of times before....

The Axis side is fine.

The Soviet side is broken.


They should not be able to hold a Leningrad to Rostov wide offensive for the entire duration of the blizzard. It makes no sense in '41.

[alfonso]

OK, summarizing this and other threads.

Phase 1. When playing Axis, you get stalled because there is no way to break the carpet wall made of infinite Soviet hordes. Game flawed.

Phase 2. When playing Soviets, there is no way to stop a human Axis player with your CV 1=1 ants. Game flawed.

Phase 3. When playing Axis, there is no way to prevent the vaporization of your army in blizzard. Game flawed.

Phase 4 ???

Last week I bought F1-2006 for my PS3. Driving with Fernando Alonso in Renault I consistently reach the Finish flag in the bottom part of the participants (Historically Alonso won that year the world championship with Renault).

Conclusions: please tick the correct one

A) Game is crap
B) My driving skills are crap. I should improve. Perhaps I should learn how to optimize the
aerodynamic load.

[pat.casey]

ORIGINAL: alfonso

ORIGINAL: pat.casey


If the axis player is more conservatively deployed than was historically the case...

...then the Soviets would be stronger than was historically the case. So why do you think that Axis strategy should be rewarded? When do you want to commence to dig? In September? Before taking Ukrainia, Moscow, Leningrad?

Historically, the axis made one last push in October and November, operation typhoon. Most of the pictures you see of staff cars being lugged through the mud and whatnot date from this period when the Wehrmacht wore itself out (and gutted its supply infrastructure), in a fruitless effort to take moscow before winter really set in.

I think the relative strengths of the two sides actually favored the germans more prior to operation Typhoon than after. The germans lost about 400k men in the operation and ended up in very exposed forward positions away from their railheads, ripe for a counterattack.

On oct 2, had the axis chosen instead to stand pat and wait for spring they'd have been much better off relative to the sovets. They could have used the time to dig in while the ground was still workable. There'd have been less strain on the supply system so they could have brought forward winter supplies, etc.

The thing you have to remember is that historically, the Germans really wore themselves down during Typhoon, which is one of the reasons the winter counterattack did so well against AGC.

To my mind the historical lesson isn't that the blizzard makes soviets into supermen, but rather that if you stretch an army to the breaking point and then bad weather hits you can spank them back to their railheads.

[pat.casey]

ORIGINAL: alfonso

OK, summarizing this and other threads.

Phase 1. When playing Axis, you get stalled because there is no way to break the carpet wall made of infinite Soviet hordes. Game flawed.

Phase 2. When playing Soviets, there is no way to stop a human Axis player with your CV 1=1 ants. Game flawed.

Phase 3. When playing Axis, there is no way to prevent the vaporization of your army in blizzard. Game flawed.

Phase 4 ???

Last week I bought F1-2006 for my PS3. Driving with Fernando Alonso in Renault I consistently reach the Finish flag in the bottom part of the participants (Historically Alonso won that year the world championship with Renault).

Conclusions: please tick the correct one

A) Game is crap
B) My driving skills are crap. I should improve. Perhaps I should learn how to optimize the
aerodynamic load.

Alfonso,

I'll repeat my earlier question:

Please show me one HVH AAR where the axis player has successfully defended the blizzard.

If you want to define "defended" as generously as possible and just find me a HVH AAR where the axis player reached spring of 1942 with an intact army capable of strategic offensives, that's fine too.

I submit, however, that there is no such beast on these forums.

If *I* couldn't defend in the blizzard, but other, better, players could, then it'd be fair to say "its a problem with the player not the game".

In this case though, I've yet to see any evidence that *any* axis player can defend the blizzard, which implies, to me at least, that its a problem with the game.

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

ORIGINAL: alfonso

ORIGINAL: pat.casey


If the axis player is more conservatively deployed than was historically the case...

...then the Soviets would be stronger than was historically the case. So why do you think that Axis strategy should be rewarded? When do you want to commence to dig? In September? Before taking Ukrainia, Moscow, Leningrad?

Historically, the axis made one last push in October and November, operation typhoon. Most of the pictures you see of staff cars being lugged through the mud and whatnot date from this period when the Wehrmacht wore itself out (and gutted its supply infrastructure), in a fruitless effort to take moscow before winter really set in.

I think the relative strengths of the two sides actually favored the germans more prior to operation Typhoon than after. The germans lost about 400k men in the operation and ended up in very exposed forward positions away from their railheads, ripe for a counterattack.

On oct 2, had the axis chosen instead to stand pat and wait for spring they'd have been much better off relative to the sovets. They could have used the time to dig in while the ground was still workable. There'd have been less strain on the supply system so they could have brought forward winter supplies, etc.

The thing you have to remember is that historically, the Germans really wore themselves down during Typhoon, which is one of the reasons the winter counterattack did so well against AGC.

To my mind the historical lesson isn't that the blizzard makes soviets into supermen, but rather that if you stretch an army to the breaking point and then bad weather hits you can spank them back to their railheads.

Well, as you probably know there can be some debate about successes and mishaps of Germany in WWII. For instance, probably due to Typhoon the Siberian Divisions were sent to the Moscow axis, which somehow would help to explain the German catastrophe there. With no Typhon perhaps they would have been sent to Leningrad to create havoc in AG North....

But, well, perhaps it is another debate. My point here is why is it possible for many of you as early in the history of this game, to know that the game is flawed? How do you know that most of the balance issues are not due mostly to inexperience? How do you know that winter is wrong?

[randallw]

ORIGINAL: Zort

Guess I am confused concerning the Axis superman status in 41.  I have been playing 2 CG games on the server, and did several against the AI to get my feet wet (didn't finish any though, got thru blizzard on a couple).  So far the only reason I have gotten further then historical is because my opponent retreated more.  When he has been doing the forward layered defense I am behind historical.  I am not an expert player and I don't think most people are so I must be missing something.  What is this axis ability?

So my other question is if you do away with the "superman" status for the axis in 41 will they have the ability to get as far as they did historically against an average soviet player?

The superman status of the Germans is that their experience values are about twice that of the Russians. It's sort of like one man being worth two men of the other side.

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

ORIGINAL: alfonso

OK, summarizing this and other threads.

Phase 1. When playing Axis, you get stalled because there is no way to break the carpet wall made of infinite Soviet hordes. Game flawed.

Phase 2. When playing Soviets, there is no way to stop a human Axis player with your CV 1=1 ants. Game flawed.

Phase 3. When playing Axis, there is no way to prevent the vaporization of your army in blizzard. Game flawed.

Phase 4 ???

Last week I bought F1-2006 for my PS3. Driving with Fernando Alonso in Renault I consistently reach the Finish flag in the bottom part of the participants (Historically Alonso won that year the world championship with Renault).

Conclusions: please tick the correct one

A) Game is crap
B) My driving skills are crap. I should improve. Perhaps I should learn how to optimize the
aerodynamic load.

Alfonso,

I'll repeat my earlier question:

Please show me one HVH AAR where the axis player has successfully defended the blizzard.

If you want to define "defended" as generously as possible and just find me a HVH AAR where the axis player reached spring of 1942 with an intact army capable of strategic offensives, that's fine too.

I submit, however, that there is no such beast on these forums.

If *I* couldn't defend in the blizzard, but other, better, players could, then it'd be fair to say "its a problem with the player not the game".

In this case though, I've yet to see any evidence that *any* axis player can defend the blizzard, which implies, to me at least, that its a problem with the game.

True, there is no AAR of succesful blizzard defense. Your proof that this is undoable is that nobody did it yet?

Could it be that nobody is capable of doing that before passing through 3-4 blizzards?

BigAnorak said he could survive.

[Senno]

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

ORIGINAL: alfonso

OK, summarizing this and other threads.

Phase 1. When playing Axis, you get stalled because there is no way to break the carpet wall made of infinite Soviet hordes. Game flawed.

Phase 2. When playing Soviets, there is no way to stop a human Axis player with your CV 1=1 ants. Game flawed.

Phase 3. When playing Axis, there is no way to prevent the vaporization of your army in blizzard. Game flawed.

Phase 4 ???

Last week I bought F1-2006 for my PS3. Driving with Fernando Alonso in Renault I consistently reach the Finish flag in the bottom part of the participants (Historically Alonso won that year the world championship with Renault).

Conclusions: please tick the correct one

A) Game is crap
B) My driving skills are crap. I should improve. Perhaps I should learn how to optimize the
aerodynamic load.

Alfonso,

I'll repeat my earlier question:

Please show me one HVH AAR where the axis player has successfully defended the blizzard.

If you want to define "defended" as generously as possible and just find me a HVH AAR where the axis player reached spring of 1942 with an intact army capable of strategic offensives, that's fine too.

I submit, however, that there is no such beast on these forums.

If *I* couldn't defend in the blizzard, but other, better, players could, then it'd be fair to say "its a problem with the player not the game".

In this case though, I've yet to see any evidence that *any* axis player can defend the blizzard, which implies, to me at least, that its a problem with the game.

I call your "successfully defended" and raise you "has any player played through the blizzard and posted the AAR?"

Seems that most give up the ghost prior to being able to make the determination? No one has gotten to Spring '42 and posted it. We don't know if they are at 55% in AGC and AGN to launch their AGS attacks or what their condition is.

Which leaves me with Alfonso... How do you know?

I am still hoping Speedy and BigA will capture enough data for the Devs.

[pat.casey]

ORIGINAL: alfonso
<snip>

True, there is no AAR of succesful blizzard defense. Your proof that this is undoable is that nobody did it yet?

Could it be that nobody is capable of doing that before passing through 3-4 blizzards?

BigAnorak said he could survive.

At this point in the game's lifecycle, yes, I'm willing to say that if nobody has figured out a viable blizzard defense yet there probably isn't one. Certainly, one can cling to the belief that continued experimentation will eventually identify a solution, but to my mind that's about as likely as the belief that if I can just get the right experimental conditions I can turn lead into gold.

As for BigAnorak, he has apparently changes his mind and no longer thinks the blizzard is properly balanced.

From this house rules thread:

The more I look at the threads and AARs relating to the infamous First Winter, and the more I analyse my own playing of the game, the more I feel there needs to be some limit on the SU's ability to attack and advance during the blizzard. If you look at what happened historically you may start to understand why the game engine sometimes struggles to cope with the pressure put upon it.

[alfonso]

How many AARs have reached December 1941 and then June 1942 after the experience bug was corrected? And only to December 1941?

[pat.casey]

ORIGINAL: Senno


I call your "successfully defended" and raise you "has any player played through the blizzard and posted the AAR?"

Seems that most give up the ghost prior to being able to make the determination? No one has gotten to Spring '42 and posted it. We don't know if they are at 55% in AGC and AGN to launch their AGS attacks or what their condition is.

Which leaves me with Alfonso... How do you know?

I am still hoping Speedy and BigA will capture enough data for the Devs.

To my analysis there are two classes of AARs out there right now, both of which lead to the same conclusion, that the blizzard is overpowered.

The vast majority of HVH AARs just plain stop after about 3 turns of blizzard and the axis players beg off and surrender. The players of these games don't see any hope of salvaging them so they abandon rather than try.

Then you have a small minority who slog through the blizzards in the interest of science, like qball, who's made it almost to February, albeit without much of an army left.

As a player, the large number of abandoned games concerns me more than anything else, because it tells me that axis players don't only find the blizzard unwinnable, they also find it not fun. So not fun, in fact, that the abandon the game rather than sit there and get clubbed like baby seals.

[Mynok]

Both 2ndACR and Haudrauf1962 posted AARs that went all the way through the blizzards. The Germans were simply unable to mount offensives at all due to the lack of decent infantry. Those two I believe were both influential in getting the morale and experience changes made.

[Senno]

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

ORIGINAL: alfonso
<snip>

True, there is no AAR of succesful blizzard defense. Your proof that this is undoable is that nobody did it yet?

Could it be that nobody is capable of doing that before passing through 3-4 blizzards?

BigAnorak said he could survive.

At this point in the game's lifecycle, yes, I'm willing to say that if nobody has figured out a viable blizzard defense yet there probably isn't one. Certainly, one can cling to the belief that continued experimentation will eventually identify a solution, but to my mind that's about as likely as the belief that if I can just get the right experimental conditions I can turn lead into gold.

As for BigAnorak, he has apparently changes his mind and no longer thinks the blizzard is properly balanced.

From this house rules thread:

The more I look at the threads and AARs relating to the infamous First Winter, and the more I analyse my own playing of the game, the more I feel there needs to be some limit on the SU's ability to attack and advance during the blizzard. If you look at what happened historically you may start to understand why the game engine sometimes struggles to cope with the pressure put upon it.

I don't accept your contention. But for the moment, let's just say that I do. Given how history played out should there be a viable defense available? There are 2 players involved, your successful defense = unsucessful Soviet attacks. And no one can argue the Soviets weren't successful over large swaths of the front. Where does the balance lie? What do you consider a viable defense, all Soviet attacks defeated and not one step back?

And honestly "continued experimentation"... There hasn't been much with Beta 5 & 6. We still don't have an AAR that goes through Summer '42....

And no offense to Q-Ball, I have enjoyed his AAR, but ComradeP is telling him he isn't forming his defense correctly in the AAR. Maybe the testers should just put forth their 'successful defense" rather than just giving hints? I'd think that people would enjoy finding the answers themselves, but in the face of "it hasn't been done, so it can't be done" maybe that would be more help. I think people's frustration is approaching the not playing the game anymore level more and more. Oleg is there, but he has the zeal of the newly converted going on (j/k Oleg)[;)]. So maybe some solid communication would be better.

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Both 2ndACR and Haudrauf1962 posted AARs that went all the way through the blizzards. The Germans were simply unable to mount offensives at all due to the lack of decent infantry. Those two I believe were both influential in getting the morale and experience changes made.

Right. And both were pre Beta 5/6. And I agreed with ACR about the TOE and Exp bugs. And the armaments bug was somewhere in there. So now I'd like to see more than 1 full game through to Summer '42, hopefully. Or at least 1... And if changes need to be made, fine. But for now, everyone has stopped. Other than BigA and Speedy, anyway.

[color]

ORIGINAL: alfonso

ORIGINAL: pat.casey


If the axis player is more conservatively deployed than was historically the case...

...then the Soviets would be stronger than was historically the case. So why do you think that Axis strategy should be rewarded? When do you want to commence to dig? In September? Before taking Ukrainia, Moscow, Leningrad?

Most Russian casualties in '41 were suffered as captured up to and including the capturing of the pockets at Kiev, Vyazma and Bryansk. Had the Germans gone over to a more defensive stature after this (roughly middle october) and prepared for winter, the big WHAT-IF is how much better they would have been prepared for the russian winter counter attack.

Of course, given the sorry state of the russian army after these pockets fell, one can understand the temptation taking moscow presented. BTW, did you know Stalin ordered the evacuation of the Communist Party, the General Staff and various civil government offices from Moscow on the 13th of October?
It pretty obvious the situation at that point made both combatants feel mostly 'anything' could happen.

It should also be noted a very substantial part of the troops for the winter counter-offensive came from fresh divisions released from Siberia & the Far East, as Stalin had solid intel that Japan was not going to attack the Soviet Union. So even thought the russians could maybe have saved a couple of hundred thousands casualties more if the Germans had dropped most of operation Typhoon, I would question how big a difference it would have made to available strength for the winter conter-offensive.

And let's not forget the Germans would have spared casualties as well.

[pat.casey]

ORIGINAL: Senno

I don't accept your contention. But for the moment, let's just say that I do. Given how history played out should there be a viable defense available? There are 2 players involved, your successful defense = unsucessful Soviet attacks. And no one can argue the Soviets weren't successful over large swaths of the front. Where does the balance lie? What do you consider a viable defense, all Soviet attacks defeated and not one step back?

<snip>

I think the balance of the winter counteroffensive is the same as the balance of the initial summer blitzkrieg.

If the germans do something stupid like push away from their railheads in mud and then get stranded in the bush without prepared positions when the blizzard hits, they should be vulnerable for a counterattack.

Historically, the germans did precisely that and they paid the price.

A human player, with the advantage of hindsight, will not make the same mistake and shouldn't pay the same price.

The flip side of this is also true in that the historical soviets did the germans a number of willing favors by staying put and letting themselves be encircled, leading to the cauldron battles in the summer of 1941.

A human player won't do that and will preserve a far greater proportion of the red army than historically happened.

So what I'd expect to play out in a game without artificial modifiers would be a weaker blitzkrieg, followed by a limited winter offensive, followed by a german attempt to win the war in 1942.

What I see in the game today though are a pair of artificial components designed to produce roughly the outline of the historical first 12 months of the war.

The germans are given ahistrically strong assault capabilities in Summer of 1941 to allow for a viable blitzkrief.
The soviets are given ahistorically strong assault capabilities in Winter of 1941/42 to allow for a "rollback" of the Wehrmacht high water mark.

[Senno]

ORIGINAL: color

ORIGINAL: alfonso

ORIGINAL: pat.casey


If the axis player is more conservatively deployed than was historically the case...

...then the Soviets would be stronger than was historically the case. So why do you think that Axis strategy should be rewarded? When do you want to commence to dig? In September? Before taking Ukrainia, Moscow, Leningrad?

Most Russian casualties in '41 were suffered as captured up to and including the capturing of the pockets at Kiev, Vyazma and Bryansk. Had the Germans gone over to a more defensive stature after this (roughly middle october) and prepared for winter, the big WHAT-IF is how much better they would have been prepared for the russian winter counter attack.

Of course, given the sorry state of the russian army after these pockets fell, one can understand the temptation taking moscow presented. BTW, did you know Stalin ordered the evacuation of the Communist Party, the General Staff and various civil government offices from Moscow on the 13th of October?
It pretty obvious the situation at that point made both combatants feel mostly 'anything' could happen.

It should also be noted a very substantial part of the troops for the winter counter-offensive came from fresh divisions released from Siberia & the Far East, as Stalin had solid intel that Japan was not going to attack the Soviet Union. So even thought the russians could maybe have saved a couple of hundred thousands casualties more if the Germans had dropped most of operation Typhoon, I would question how big a difference it would have made to available strength for the winter conter-offensive.

And let's not forget the Germans would have spared casualties as well.

Right. But in reality a couple months later it was the Soviets with the breathing room and the good "anything could happen" feeling and the Germans with the bad "anything could happen" feeling.

Basically, I don't think it should be a walkover for anyone. And there should be no sure fire "a-ha" defense or offense for either side.

ORIGINAL: pat.casey


So what I'd expect to play out in a game without artificial modifiers would be a weaker blitzkrieg, followed by a limited winter offensive, followed by a german attempt to win the war in 1942.

Hmm, not far off from what I'd like probably. But I do think it's a design choice made by the Designers that the players feel the desperation that both sides felt, as much as possible in a game anyway. And it was utter, bleak desperation, it seems. That's what I get from reading anyway. And if you iron out the difficulties and have a nice easy time as either side, you definitely won't experience those.

BTW, I'm not sure the German units themselves are supermen, as the Soviets achieve those CV's as well, later in the war. We've seen 30 = whatever mech corps a posted, easily the equal of the Panzer Divisions. And the rifle corps and tank corps end up pretty strong as well. The math is unexplained largely though; ie how the final CV (sometimes x10 or even more) is calculated. Leadership, SU's whatever all goes into it.

And I'm not really happy with the 1/8th penalty applied in mud. I haven't attacked in mud since the first game I played. But didn't really know about the rule, it was just intuitive. But I digress.

And I'm kinda tired of the debate for the weekend, and just want to play. /sigh...

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: color

ORIGINAL: alfonso

ORIGINAL: pat.casey


If the axis player is more conservatively deployed than was historically the case...

...then the Soviets would be stronger than was historically the case. So why do you think that Axis strategy should be rewarded? When do you want to commence to dig? In September? Before taking Ukrainia, Moscow, Leningrad?

Most Russian casualties in '41 were suffered as captured up to and including the capturing of the pockets at Kiev, Vyazma and Bryansk. Had the Germans gone over to a more defensive stature after this (roughly middle october) and prepared for winter, the big WHAT-IF is how much better they would have been prepared for the russian winter counter attack.

Of course, given the sorry state of the russian army after these pockets fell, one can understand the temptation taking moscow presented. BTW, did you know Stalin ordered the evacuation of the Communist Party, the General Staff and various civil government offices from Moscow on the 13th of October?
It pretty obvious the situation at that point made both combatants feel mostly 'anything' could happen.

It should also be noted a very substantial part of the troops for the winter counter-offensive came from fresh divisions released from Siberia & the Far East, as Stalin had solid intel that Japan was not going to attack the Soviet Union. So even thought the russians could maybe have saved a couple of hundred thousands casualties more if the Germans had dropped most of operation Typhoon, I would question how big a difference it would have made to available strength for the winter conter-offensive.

And let's not forget the Germans would have spared casualties as well.

Yes, in this you are probably right. But in game terms it is going to be very difficult to recreate that, the chance to rest just after the Kiev, Bryansk and Vyazhma pockets, but just before blizzard hits. Usually the Soviet tall of casualties is more linearly dependant of the date, there are usually smaller pockets than in the real war.

I was thinking that digging early would be start digging in September, to have time to build Forts 4