Oleg's German supermen

[PeeDeeAitch]

You should trade him 1000 views for Leningrad.

[Encircled]

It takes balls to write an AAR, oh, and a viable paint type program (which due to "What the hell am I going to use that for, its not like I'm going to suddenly feel the need to write an AAR with pictures, is it?" decision many moons ago resulted in me deleting mine.)

I'll stick to referencing popular culture in the style of a Stuka going down over Stalingrad

[Senno]

ORIGINAL: Encircled

I'll stick to referencing popular culture in the style of a Stuka going down over Stalingrad

I think I should as well.

My stukas are many moons from Stalingrad. I can safely say that, OP SEC concerns notwithstanding.

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

You should trade him 1000 views for Leningrad.

LoL.

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

I think that counts at least as half a victory. Like taking Leningrad, sort of [:D]

I'm afraid I can't declare "half victory" with Leningrad either, really. The Devs have set the victory conditions. One of us will have to reach them.

Will I or won't I have an army in Spring '42? That's the question.

Otherwise, I'm not sure what your point is, really.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Senno, your AAR got much more popular than mine. I don't know why since I can't and won't read it.

I think that counts at least as half a victory. Like taking Leningrad, sort of [:D]

Oleg, we are waiting your latest update in your AAR... [:D]


Leo "Apollo11"

[Senno]

I'm still listening to Auto-tune the news and haven't sent it back yet. I'm on schedule, though. No rush.

[Senno]

Oh shoot, the time changed, it's actually 1:55. And I'm late. I forgot to change my clocks last night, sorry.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

I can point it out to Oleg 100 times, maybe 1000 times, but he will still refuse to see that the Germans are not really supermen, that the Soviets can make counterattacks when they concentrate forces (the key problem is lack of force concentration, not the quality of Soviet units per se) and that you can pretty easily make more counterattacks than historical. He's dogmatically attached to his perspective, nothing will change it.

This is my perspective of Oleg's temperament as well. It seems to me that when Oleg gets results he finds poor, it's the mechanics of the game. When Oleg wins, it's because his opponent played badly and needs to learn more.

I play Soviet and Axis, and I personally find Soviet to be far easier in terms of pressure to perform to historical standards in both Soviets knocked out of action and land ceded to the Axis. I agree with players who say that the gameplay is 'one-sided' but this is not to say it's unbalanced.

The Germans invaded in 1941 with every reason to believe they would have operational advantages that lasted long enough to knock Stalin out of power. The game reflects the truth of the first half of that idea and also the falsehood of the second.

The Soviet already gets the a-historic advantage of perfect control and uniform (which is not to say 'adequate') supply distribution. The German also gets the same kinds of advantages. But the Soviet's only strategic goal between June and November is simply to husband his forces in decent repair and hold out for December. I personally find it fairly easy to do, but it requires a great deal of Admin, as others have pointed out. And administration has little flavor as a gameplay style.

As the Axis, I find play to be frenetic in a stress-filled way. You have to kill units. Lots and lots and lots of units. AND you have to reach a reasonable point geographically before mud. Balancing those imperatives is very difficult, particularly against a Soviet who is effective at limiting the encirclement of his units.

Blizzards aside, I think the Soviet has the advantage in 1941. I sympathize that it's a tedious and dull style of gameplay, with very, very few opportunities to counter-attack for the Soviet until first winter.

For me, I'm perfectly happy with the way 1941 plays out in human-vs.-human play.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

This is my perspective of Oleg's temperament as well. It seems to me that when Oleg gets results he finds poor, it's the mechanics of the game. When Oleg wins, it's because his opponent played badly and needs to learn more.

Well at least I am not boasting around imagining that I am some kind of Napoleon beating people with my own skill. When I as Russian manage to stop German far from Moscow and LG I know it's not really due to my Sith abilities, it's probably due to his fault for not being aggressive enough (ab)using his set of summer superpowers. I am just doing a decent job to punish that.

On the other hand, when Germans beat me around like a mule, like Emir and James did, I don't feel it's due to my big faults either, it's just them playing the mechanics of the game to the max, with me watching helplessly. Onesidedness that this game is producing can be very frustrating, and I can honestly say I've never seen it to this degree in any other wargame. This is not the "end of civilization" as some poster put it, but is something that IMO would be nice to see tweaked.

I agree with players who say that the gameplay is 'one-sided' but this is not to say it's unbalanced.

It is far too early to talk about long term general balance. So far I don't like very much some elements of weather and CV modelling during 41, that's all. I am not taking sides, because both sides have their quirks.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

I sympathize that it's a tedious and dull style of gameplay, with very, very few opportunities to counter-attack for the Soviet until first winter.

For me, I'm perfectly happy with the way 1941 plays out in human-vs.-human play.

I don't agree. Trying to stop the Germans is a lot of fun, a challenge. You're like an overwhelmed juggler, trying to find some balance (which seems impossible at the beginning). Many fronts, many STAVKA reserves, many priorities, many surprises ("oh, that part collapsed, I guess something shold be done"). Defending is indeed a destructive activity. But I am finding there is a lot of creativity involved too [:)]

[randallw]

What is the median experience level for German inf/panzer divisions on turn 1 of the full campaign? ( When I say median mean about 50% of the units above the number and 50% under it; computing an average or 'mode' number would be too much work )  I'm guessing it's around the range of 70-80.  Maybe some of you Axis players took notes on this.
 
The Soviet median experience is above 30 but definitely below 40.  As I mention in another thread, this is like 1 German being worth 2 Soviets.

[ComradeP]

Maybe in your hands vs notenome they were not supermen. In the hands of the right player they are. Germans have all the supermen tools at their disposal, but of course, if they are "sub-optimally" lead you will never see how superman-y they really are.

Actually, notenome launched very few successful counterattacks. I've launched more successful counterattacks in 3 turns of my game with James, than notenome did in his entire game with me.

For starters, check, for example a very short AAR (more of a report than full AAR) of the Emir's game vs myself.

As you suggest, it wasn't an AAR, just a report, making it impossible to track what happened. Judging by your losses, I'd say you messed up, considering the huge amount of divisions he destroyed and considering that you lost many more men than people facing other competent Axis opponents.

In order to lose units in pockets, you have to place them in a position where they can be pocketed. If you indeed "watched" like you said, you did quite a lot wrong as you should always be putting pressure on the Axis, it's the only way to really slow them in 1941.

I'm just not really convinced by your argument, as your performance as a Soviet player in the game you mention here was amongst the worst out there.

And another point. Most accounts of Typhoon note that German units pre-blizzard were in pretty beaten up shape, spent and exhausted, with TOEs down to 50%, 40%, even 30%. How many times have you seen that in WITE? Germans usually get to blizz period with their divisional TOEs over 80% without problem. Of course, then there's this Godzilla blizzard monster to take care of that, with some contrived modifiers to make Sov supermen and all that, but we discussed it already...

How many times have you seen Soviet strength drop below German strength on large sectors of the front, like it historically did for a time, in a game where the Soviet player didn't screw up badly? Most players don't come close, not even the ones making very good progress like PeeDeeAitch and Q-Ball. The higher German TOE's are currently pretty much balanced by a much stronger than historical Soviet Army I'd say.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
Actually, notenome launched very few successful counterattacks.

Someone gave me that game as example that Soviet multi army attacks in summer, such as Glantz describes in his books are indeed possible. I am glad to see your German ubermensch unaffected and unshaken by these lowly attempts, it kinda proves my point vs that other guy [:D]

I'm just not really convinced by your argument, as your performance as a Soviet player in the game you mention here was amongst the worst out there.

That's OK. That's why I gave you examples of my "excellent" play as Soviets (game with ACR for example).

Except for the fact that my play was neither "among the worst" nor "excellent", I was just doing my thing, but it's the German player who performs good or bad in the opening turns. So it was just me in both examples, I didn't use different brain to play different people, so I have to conclude everything Emir did with HIS Germans other players could do as well, but failed.

How many times have you seen Soviet strength drop below German strength on large sectors of the front, like it historically did for a time, in a game where the Soviet player didn't screw up badly?

German or Axis? It depends on which data you use. I've seen quite a few games where German manpower equals Soviet for a period of time, and Axis as a whole outnumber Soviets by the end of summer in most games I've seen or read about.

[PeeDeeAitch]

ORIGINAL: hfarrish
When you say counterattack do you mean a coordinated multi-attack thrust or just the act of successfully throwing back a German unit or two here and there? Because the latter (during summer, no less) is certainly possible against aggressive German players - I'm no great shakes as a Soviet player but have managed to do it multiple times in my PBEM games. Obviously it does require a significant mass of units but would that really have been ahistorical?

I am pretty aggressive, and I see a couple of successful counter-attacks each turn. Capt Flam has been the best at this - I have to admit I bring it on myself - and he has kept pockets from closing for a couple of turns with his counters to my aggression.

For me, it pays off, but a good blunting of a unit or two can dampen the enthusiam of all but an unusually overconfident player like me (wink).

[ComradeP]

Someone gave me that game as example that Soviet multi army attacks in summer, such as Glantz describes in his books are indeed possible. I am glad to see your German ubermensch unaffected and unshaken by these lowly attempts, it kinda proves my point vs that other guy

I'd say my game with notenome provides a good lesson in how trying to hold a very long line severely limits Soviet force concentration, and thus the amount of possible counterattacks. You can't have both a long line and a significant number of counterattacks each turn, as the forces are simply not available. Concentrate forces and you can launch ~3-5 (first few turns) up to around 10 or more (later on) counterattacks each turn.

Keep in mind that the WitE combat includes both the attack and defender counterattacks, at least that's what I was told, so considering that most Soviet counterattacks in 1941 failed to do more than slow the Germans, results are much better than they historically were in a number of games.

It's all about force concentration. From the Soviet perspective, many Panzer divisions and basically all mobile divisions are at around 6 or so CV after they've moved, there's nothing "supermen" about that.

[Q-Ball]

Since my AAR was mentioned a couple times, I personally don't buy German Supermen. It's tougher to push the Soviets around than was done historically, and as players learn administration and defensive tactics, tougher all the time. Soviet players who concentrate force can cause some serious problems for the Germans.

I am with helodorius, that the Soviet player has the advantage of hindsight. Probably the engine works well in terms of combat, the reason the Germans have trouble replicating historical results in Soviet Losses and Territory is the the Soviet player isn't doomed to repeat the RL stupidity.

I have played some Soviet, and after the first couple turns, it's not too hard to keep the Germans from making massive encirclements. Sure, they'll get some units here and there, but 20-division pockets.....a decent defensive set-up will prevent that. A Soviet player that gets 30 units pocketed after Turn 3 is probably making mistakes.

[Rugens]

In a PBEM game with a decent Soviet player the Soviets have no problem making counterattacks. In fact very effective counter attacks. It is still my biggest complaint about the game. Against the AI there is no problem. A good Soviet player however with the existing rules make large encirclements very difficult. Even smaller encirclements are very difficult because the Soviets (in the right hands) if set up properly can bounce one, two or even three divisions out of a hex on a pretty regular basis. Not terribly realistic in the summer & fall of 41 but the game existing game mechanics make it quite easy.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Since my AAR was mentioned a couple times, I personally don't buy German Supermen. It's tougher to push the Soviets around than was done historically, and as players learn administration and defensive tactics, tougher all the time. Soviet players who concentrate force can cause some serious problems for the Germans.

I am with helodorius, that the Soviet player has the advantage of hindsight. Probably the engine works well in terms of combat, the reason the Germans have trouble replicating historical results in Soviet Losses and Territory is the the Soviet player isn't doomed to repeat the RL stupidity.

I have played some Soviet, and after the first couple turns, it's not too hard to keep the Germans from making massive encirclements. Sure, they'll get some units here and there, but 20-division pockets.....a decent defensive set-up will prevent that. A Soviet player that gets 30 units pocketed after Turn 3 is probably making mistakes.

Especially with the changes to morale in 1.03, this is true. The previous runaway morale inflation was curbed (IMO excessively) which severely reduces Axis mobility in enemy territory. After a few inevitably failed attacks, it is very rare that any significant number of the German mobile units will have a morale greater than 85, which means that their mobility in enemy territory is reduced by 33% or more. Focused Soviet counterattacks on overexposed mobile units only accelerate this downward spiral of morale loss > lower strength > failed attacks > morale loss > repeat.

The same issue has been seen with the Axis infantry, which struggle to move 4 hexes unopposed per turn in enemy territory. This makes Soviet tactics such as a full scale, phased withdrawing carpet a viable game technique. By withdrawing 3-4 hexes each turn, during the summer, the Soviets can keep just ahead of the marching infantry, and wear down the mobile units that are trying to pursue. There are few axes of attack that force the Soviets to really stand and fight in order to delay the Axis advance enough to protect vital interests (factories to be relocated, Moscow, Leningrad, et al). However, for the most part, the Soviets can just give up space, in a series of withdrawals that will leave the Axis in the same situation geographically that they were historically, but with the added advantage to the Soviets of one or two million men at arms than they had when the winter hits.

Then, of course, the Winter rules come into effect and change everything. But that is something for another thread...[;)]

For games started before, or having a significant amount of turns run under versions prior to 1.03, this may not be of much solace to a struggling Soviet player. For those started after 1.03 Beta 3, my best advice to the Soviet player is to avoid pocketing, stay just beyond reach of the German infantry wherever possible, and most of all...DON'T PANIC!

[squatter]

[blockquote]"quote: ORIGINAL: ComradeP
Actually, notenome launched very few successful counterattacks.

OLEG: "Someone gave me that game as example that Soviet multi army attacks in summer, such as Glantz describes in his books are indeed possible. I am glad to see your German ubermensch unaffected and unshaken by these lowly attempts, it kinda proves my point vs that other guy [:D] "[/blockquote]
That was me who referred you to the ComP vs Notemone AAR to dispel your German Supermen fantasy. And your point is about as far from being proved as Col Gaddaffi is from Disneyland. I can see you are someone who believes having the last word equates to winning an argument, and that this will run and run as long as you still draw breath, so I'll try to make this my final contribution to the matter.
 
Have a re-read of the AAR Oleg, go on have another look. Remember that this is an AAR where the Axis side (the supermen) are played by a tester, and the soviets by a novice.
 
YOU SAID: "due to "supermen syndrome" any sensible coherent multi unit counterattacks are nigh on impossible for the untermencsh side (Sovs in summer or Germans in blizzard). The best a lucky [Soviet] player can hope for is 6 CV Kiev MD tank division catching unlucky Rumanians in the open and making them retreat one hex. There are simply no rational provisions for, say, coherent, 2 army Soviet counterattack to "sap German strength and will", as described in Glantz's book."
 
I directed you to this AAR for, among others, these examples:
 
Turn 4. That's July 1941. A Panzer division is attacked FOUR times in a single turn. In the forth attack alone, eight soviet divisions from TWO armies ROUT the panzer division, destroying a third of its armour. Scroll half way down here if you're interested:
 
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2652023&mpage=3&key= 
 
Turn 11. Counterrattacks involving AT LEAST SEVEN Soviet armies are launched:
 
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2652023&mpage=5&key=
 
TWO German motorised divisions, TWO german infantry divisions, and TWO SS motorised brigades are forced to retreat or rout, with heavy losses. IN A SINGLE TURN.
 
ComradeP says of the Russian counterattacks: "Soviet counterattacks are easier than they should be... I have the feeling the 1941 campaign will turn into a train wreck... Amongst the wargames I've played, WitE is probably the most generous to the Soviets in [summer] 1941."
 
Is it a little clearer now why I cited this AAR to you? Do you still think it 'kinda proves your point'?

As I said before to you in another thread, you ought to stop citing examples that are catastrophic to your argument - such as this AAR is - if you want to win a debate. Just some advice from me to you.
 
ComradeP: sorry to quote you without permission, hope you don't mind.

[Oleg Mastruko]

squatter, there was no need to write such a long post, as I've put semi-ironic smiley in my reply to Pieter, in case you didn't notice. Smiley is a sign I don't want to get involved in discussion whether notenome's attacks were "dangerous" or "successful" or anything. If Pieter says he considers them feeble and/or unsuccessful I'll just politely smile and go about my business. I think those attacks might have hurt his ego more than his forces [;)]

Thanks for the AAR links, but I still don't consider them to be examples comparable to those from Glantz's books, that's all.

Lets put it like this: do you think Glantz himself would be happy with counterattacking ability Sovs have in this game in 41? Apparently, you think he would. I think he would not. Until we can ask Glantz himself for his opinion, we can only respectfuly agree to diasgree....

[karonagames]

Well, Mr Glantz does talk about panzer divisions getting routed in 1941 in this talk, so I think he knows the soviets were capable of doing it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Clz27nghIg