Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: MengJiao
My point is that if you want the Russians to have a reason to fight pretty far forward, you might consider a scenario where it makes sense to fight pretty far forward.

If that is your point, then I expect that many alternative early war scenarios will eventually appear, including various changes of doctrine, with options for the Soviet side launching first strike attacks in 1940/41/42.

My point was, that your repeated response on this and other threads is to ignore 1941 and start play in 1942, which is to waste a significant part of the game, that has perhaps the best chance of different and more interesting results.

Historically, Russian forces were ordered to fight pretty far forward in 1941, in fact they were ordered to counter attack deep into Poland. This was their historical doctrine of deep battle, but scenarios and settings could provide any number of alternative doctrines. All options should be up for discussion, in time it should be possible to satisfy the needs of most players - historical, or balanced - AI play, or PBEM.

So at this stage I see no reason to exclude any suggestion, the developers and modding groups will decide what is possible and worth trying.

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown
Should the Germans also be forced to stand and fight ala Stalingrad? No retreats during the first blizzard?

ORIGINAL: Jakerson
Yes they should it boring that they give up land without fight. Game really need some Hitler rule that auto execute all retreating German Generals that do not fight for every inch of Soviet territory as Hitler required mobile defence was historically out of question.

Hitler ordered Historically that German troops have no right to retreat at all at winter 41-42. Hitler beleaved that his order of not allowing retreat at all actually saved army group center from collapse.

Hmmh, never thought that it would be boring if one player pursued a strategy that would be hard to punish by the opponent, like a (fighting, or not?) Russian withdrawal during the summers of 41 and 42, or a German one during the winters. However, maybe this would in fact have been the best strategy both the Russians and Germans could historically have pursued?

There probably is a fine line between allowing "boring" strategies, and cutting down on viable options to be pursued within the game model. It is not entirely unimaginable that either Hitler or Stalin would have given their staff the freedom to conduct the withdrawals (would you bet against it?), either voluntarily, or by external influences (say getting a heart attack and being left as a marionette -- esp. Hitler wasn't in good health at all times). And besides, this is a game and ideally should allow as much freedom as would be rationally possible (i.e. could technically have happened if there had historically not been any human interference/doctrines). This makes probably the most powerful game/simulation engine that will be around for long.

House rules, or optional on-start campaign rules could be used to limit it by preventing either withdrawals. But in that case I agree with C&G that both sides need to be tied by comparable hindrances.

However, say if you limit withdrawals, one perhaps should also add another rule should force Germans to attack right up until all forces are below 50%, and that Russians would need to be forced to counterattack at certain times (to prevent skewing the outcome by the 1st rule?). And maybe one also ought to implement a Hitler rule to tell the player in which areas to place the armor, and which goals and targets he ought to pursue -- as for Hitler I am sure he defined targets and goals, and employment of Corps like II. SS-PzKps, Stalin I don't know. I hope you see my point already. The more you limit the game by additional "human-induced" rules, the less the player can actually do within the game. Until at least you converge on a truly close-to-historical course, and basically find yourself left without control and reading a book... I suppose the game should leave a lot of freedom, and that optional rules and house rules should complement it as to the player's wishes.

ORIGINAL: janh
Hmmh, never thought that it would be boring if one player pursued a strategy that would be hard to punish by the opponent, like a (fighting, or not?) Russian withdrawal during the summers of 41 and 42, or a German one during the winters. However, maybe this would in fact have been the best strategy both the Russians and Germans could historically have pursued?

There probably is a fine line between allowing "boring" strategies, and cutting down on viable options to be pursued within the game model. It is not entirely unimaginable that either Hitler or Stalin would have given their staff the freedom to conduct the withdrawals (would you bet against it?), either voluntarily, or by external influences (say getting a heart attack and being left as a marionette -- esp. Hitler wasn't in good health at all times). And besides, this is a game and ideally should allow as much freedom as would be rationally possible (i.e. could technically have happened if there had historically not been any human interference/doctrines). This makes probably the most powerful game/simulation engine that will be around for long.

House rules, or optional on-start campaign rules could be used to limit it by preventing either withdrawals. But in that case I agree with C&G that both sides need to be tied by comparable hindrances.

However, say if you limit withdrawals, one perhaps should also add another rule should force Germans to attack right up until all forces are below 50%, and that Russians would need to be forced to counterattack at certain times (to prevent skewing the outcome by the 1st rule?). And maybe one also ought to implement a Hitler rule to tell the player in which areas to place the armor, and which goals and targets he ought to pursue -- as for Hitler I am sure he defined targets and goals, and employment of Corps like II. SS-PzKps, Stalin I don't know. I hope you see my point already. The more you limit the game by additional "human-induced" rules, the less the player can actually do within the game. Until at least you converge on a truly close-to-historical course, and basically find yourself left without control and reading a book... I suppose the game should leave a lot of freedom, and that optional rules and house rules should complement it as to the player's wishes.

Historically Stalin gave Soviet generals more freedom than Hitler in strategical choices apart from 1941 forced soviet counter attacks where Stalin destroyed large part of soviet armored troops by forcing them to counter attack German troops.

Hitler intervened and restricted German choices all a way during the war. Stalin did that mostly only 41 but not after that.

ORIGINAL: Jakerson
Historically Stalin gave Soviet generals more freedom than Hitler in strategical choices apart from 1941 forced soviet counter attacks where Stalin destroyed large part of soviet armored troops by forcing them to counter attack German troops.

Hitler intervened and restricted German choices all a way during the war. Stalin did that mostly only 41 but not after that.

So, if you want an historical game, for any campaign start, against either the German, or Soviet AI, the above factors should be reflected in the game, either as available settings, or scenarios. For those who want other features and doctrine, there would be alternative settings, or scenarios and PBEM options. We should all be very happy in the end, this is only the beginning of the trail. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

Historically Stalin gave Soviet generals more freedom than Hitler in strategical choices apart from 1941 forced soviet counter attacks where Stalin destroyed large part of soviet armored troops by forcing them to counter attack German troops.

Hitler intervened and restricted German choices all a way during the war. Stalin did that mostly only 41 but not after that.

The difference is that Hitler was the head of army (Chieff of General Staff) and Chief of Government. It is clearly stated by Guderian in his memoirs. Where as Stalin was never consider as head of the army, only as head of state.

But as player actually play the head of the army, they are in Hitler shoes at least partly, so Hitler rules are meaningless.

This game is about simulating the military choice. So I strongly advocate against any rule that compell a side to do something. Only to make the system simulate the consequences of choice, hence the grain rules.

As for Leningrad, the nazi planned to raze it to the ground once they took it. There was no plan to occupy it. I suggest that to be include in the game too (it is in all Civilization game) as an anti-partisan and grain consumption reducing strategy.

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

Where as Stalin was never consider as head of the army, only as head of state.

Since August 8th, 1941, Stalin was Supreme Commander of the Soviet Armed Forces. But I agree with your opinion against compelling rules.

ORIGINAL: Skanvak
The difference is that Hitler was the head of army (Chieff of General Staff) and Chief of Government. It is clearly stated by Guderian in his memoirs. Where as Stalin was never consider as head of the army, only as head of state.

But as player actually play the head of the army, they are in Hitler shoes at least partly, so Hitler rules are meaningless.

This game is about simulating the military choice. So I strongly advocate against any rule that compell a side to do something. Only to make the system simulate the consequences of choice, hence the grain rules.

Stalin was not just Head of State, he was 'head of everything' and had shown the power to have 10, 000s of Red Army officers excectuted in 1937. Therefore, titles are meaningless in a vicious dictatorship.

For me, it is to have an option to have each side with the same capabilities and doctrine as the historical forces, principally in play against the AI. You could also have settings and options for changes in doctrine, such as Soviet better preparations, a Tank doctrine as planned by Tukhachevsky (murdered in 1937), overthrow of Stalin - Zhukov in charge (Stalin hid in his dacha in June 41, expecting a coup), Germans get winter equipment.

This is all easy for me to say, as I don't have the skills, but I am sure there is a development team and modding groups that can, so it's not a matter of what we don't want, more a case of what would be good for the game in all its possible variations and settings.

Oddly enough, Stalin wasn't the head of state. He had some non entity for that. For much of his career he actually hid behind a facade of collective leadership with only General Secretary as his title. During the course of the war he collected more titles and headed the GKO and assumed official status as a Generalissimo, but never became the head of state.

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

ORIGINAL: Skanvak
The difference is that Hitler was the head of army (Chieff of General Staff) and Chief of Government. It is clearly stated by Guderian in his memoirs. Where as Stalin was never consider as head of the army, only as head of state.

But as player actually play the head of the army, they are in Hitler shoes at least partly, so Hitler rules are meaningless.

This game is about simulating the military choice. So I strongly advocate against any rule that compell a side to do something. Only to make the system simulate the consequences of choice, hence the grain rules.

Stalin was not just Head of State, he was 'head of everything' and had shown the power to have 10, 000s of Red Army officers excectuted in 1937. Therefore, titles are meaningless in a vicious dictatorship.

For me, it is to have an option to have each side with the same capabilities and doctrine as the historical forces, principally in play against the AI. You could also have settings and options for changes in doctrine, such as Soviet better preparations, a Tank doctrine as planned by Tukhachevsky (murdered in 1937), overthrow of Stalin - Zhukov in charge (Stalin hid in his dacha in June 41, expecting a coup), Germans get winter equipment.

This is all easy for me to say, as I don't have the skills, but I am sure there is a development team and modding groups that can, so it's not a matter of what we don't want, more a case of what would be good for the game in all its possible variations and settings.

The game already simulates Zhukov in charge.

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa
So, if you want an historical game, for any campaign start, against either the German, or Soviet AI, the above factors should be reflected in the game, either as available settings, or scenarios. For those who want other features and doctrine, there would be alternative settings, or scenarios and PBEM options. We should all be very happy in the end, this is only the beginning of the trail. [:)]

I do not want historical game I just want lobby for a chance that Germans have to be made to fight for territory just like it is proposed to have Soviet to fight for territory. If soviet giving up territory without a fight is not viable tactic German giving up territory without a fight should not be possible either. It is easy to show that giving up territory when playing german was not possible tactic. Hitler opposed it furiously and made a lot of effort to make all out of stand to the last men to hold the line no matter what.

Why I cannot be in the Stalin shoes and retreat as much as I choose why only Soviet side should be made to fight for territory? If its not historical that Soviet fall back a lot why it is Historical that Germans could give up territory without a fight in the winter of 41-42?

Come on guys, this is getting old. Every one needs to step back and wait until Beta 3 comes out. Since it fixes a lot of issues. Then we can get a better feel for what might need to be done then.

I could care less if the Russian runs straight for the Urals on turn 1. It will be boring for about 25 turns. Then I get to defend my gains. But I also have crippled him with his manpower losses. I have yet to see a German run away in any PBEM. Create buffers to shorten lines, go to better defensive ground, yes. That is only the smart thing to do. No one will force me to advance or even attack in mud. Same as no one will force me to defend what I know cannot be held without great risk. I will risk Hitler's bullet before I allow that.

And that is all I will say on the matter until after Beta 3.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Oddly enough, Stalin wasn't the head of state. He had some non entity for that. For much of his career he actually hid behind a facade of collective leadership with only General Secretary as his title. During the course of the war he collected more titles and headed the GKO and assumed official status as a Generalissimo, but never became the head of state.

Thanks for correcting me.

The point that some don't realise and what I wished to point out is that Hitler was acting as commander in Chief where as Stalin had Stavka doing it for him (as it should be). And STAVKA seems to have been far less impress by Stalin that the OKW/OKH was by Hitler. Stalin did meddle some time but did not command the Army whereas Hitler did.

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Oddly enough, Stalin wasn't the head of state. He had some non entity for that. For much of his career he actually hid behind a facade of collective leadership with only General Secretary as his title. During the course of the war he collected more titles and headed the GKO and assumed official status as a Generalissimo, but never became the head of state.

Thanks for correcting me.

The point that some don't realise and what I wished to point out is that Hitler was acting as commander in Chief where as Stalin had Stavka doing it for him (as it should be). And STAVKA seems to have been far less impress by Stalin that the OKW/OKH was by Hitler. Stalin did meddle some time but did not command the Army whereas Hitler did.

I think the game does a good job of giving the Soviets that STAVKA feeling. For Axis players, there just is no equivalent. Can they be happy about a theater command that was just a kind of theater for Hilterian invective? No. Can they be glad Manstien gets to command something? No. As Manstein said to Hilter and the rest of the theater command as things began to look bad and he took over Army Group Don (or A or B, or refused A and just took B and Don or Took A and B but not Don), "I ask for you to consider how things would go if we were commanding on the other side." Well, he meant "not so good for Us if we were US and we are so well...STAVKA is our mental equivalent or in fact ahead of us since I'm just asking you to imagine how badly we would beat us in our imaginations if we were STAVKA,btu we're not so it is in fact STAVKA that is going to be beating us." But there's no STAVKA feeling there. There's just Manstein saying it would be nice if we could get our act together and act like STAVKA. Which is kind of sad, but slightly comical when you really think about it. I mean the scene where Manstein suggests they imagine they are STAVKA and what's going to happen. Especially considering what did happen. No Wintergeritter. No relief of Stalingrad. Just Little Saturn.

You are right there is no equivalent of German and their cannot be. We had this disucssion before the release of the game. The only way is to have several player on the German side (for General and Hitler, OKH are just bene oui oui for Hitler) and have them play according their own agenda.

+ 1 for serious rail costs and overall mobility mp hits in the affected areas as well. If 250,000 refugees enter a road / rail network think of the strain on an armies logistical system trying to operate in that same road / rail network. This could be a problem for the germans as well in the '45 stage of the war.

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Come on guys, this is getting old. Every one needs to step back and wait until Beta 3 comes out. Since it fixes a lot of issues. Then we can get a better feel for what might need to be done then.

I could care less if the Russian runs straight for the Urals on turn 1. It will be boring for about 25 turns. Then I get to defend my gains. But I also have crippled him with his manpower losses. I have yet to see a German run away in any PBEM. Create buffers to shorten lines, go to better defensive ground, yes. That is only the smart thing to do. No one will force me to advance or even attack in mud. Same as no one will force me to defend what I know cannot be held without great risk. I will risk Hitler's bullet before I allow that.

And that is all I will say on the matter until after Beta 3.

Agreed. This is the most sensible suggestion. We need to see how the game plays out after beta3. I also think that players will get better playing the Germans with a bit more practice.
There is nothing to lose by exercising a little patience. After all it's not like 2by3 will stop supporting the game.
For now i am enjoying Q-Ball's AAR. Who is showing some of what is possible for a German player to accomplish against a decent human player. And that's still using beta2.
I know everyone just wants this game to be the best it can be, but i think we should slow down with the panic just a bit.

Remember, Q-Ball opponent went into Sir Robin mode really early into the campaign. If the Russian player runs as fast as he can, yes, the German can advance huge distances.

But you get an opponent that gets into every swamp hex up north, digs in behind the major rivers, holds every rough hex, and basically fights every step of the way, and you will find yourself stalled really quick. Of course you can say to yourself (it is a game not real people) and just throw units everywhere and such, take the huge losses to win a fight for that hex. But that is my downfall, I cannot do that. I play the game as I would in the real world. I care for my little guys.

Not so sure it was that early. More like turn 6 or so, but Q-Ball was on top of him around Leningrad and has kept up the pressure elsewhere. Russian got nailed up north for sticking around Pskov and could not get enough units up and dug in to hold the river in the south before Q-Ball was over in force with the panzers. That game shows what a great turn 1 can do for the Germans. 

That is the key, I think - Q-Ball had a very strong opening turn (and very good follow-up turns) firmly gaining the initiative and putting his opponant off balance. As we learn more about how to actually play the Germans, we do better. It is not suprising the early results seem to be stalemate and frustration as the Axis, I believe that side is the harder to learn and play. I would not be suprised if in time things even out somewhat.

I agree completely.